Pollster.com

Lincoln's Grave Warning Realized

...a letter from President Abraham Lincoln to William F Elkins on 21 November 1864:

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country...corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

Eight Principles of Uncivilization

by Paul Kingsnorth and Dougald Hine


‘We must unhumanise our views a little, and become confident
As the rock and ocean that we were made from.’


  1. We live in a time of social, economic and ecological unravelling. All around us are signs that our whole way of living is already passing into history. We will face this reality honestly and learn how to live with it.

  2. We reject the faith which holds that the converging crises of our times can be reduced to a set of‘problems’ in need of technological or political ‘solutions’.

  3. We believe that the roots of these crises lie in the stories we have been telling ourselves. We intend to challenge the stories which underpin our civilisation: the myth of progress, the myth of human centrality, and the myth of our separation from ‘nature’. These myths are more dangerous for the fact that we have forgotten they are myths.

  4. We will reassert the role of story-telling as more than mere entertainment. It is through stories that we weave reality.

  5. Humans are not the point and purpose of the planet. Our art will begin with the attempt to step outside the human bubble. By careful attention, we will reengage with the non-human world.

  6. We will celebrate writing and art which is grounded in a sense of place and of time. Our literature has been dominated for too long by those who inhabit the cosmopolitan citadels.

  7. We will not lose ourselves in the elaboration of theories or ideologies. Our words will be elemental. We write with dirt under our fingernails.

  8. The end of the world as we know it is not the end of the world full stop. Together, we will find the hope beyond hope, the paths which lead to the unknown world ahead of us.



The Dark Mountain Manifesto

(excerpt)
Walking on lava

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilisation
Ralph Waldo Emerson

Those who witness extreme social collapse at first hand seldom describe any deep revelation about the truths of human existence. What they do mention, if asked, is their surprise at how easy it is to die.

The pattern of ordinary life, in which so much stays the same from one day to the next, disguises the fragility of its fabric. How many of our activities are made possible by the impression of stability that pattern gives? So long as it repeats, or varies steadily enough, we are able to plan for tomorrow as if all the things we rely on and don’t think about too carefully will still be there. When the pattern is broken, by civil war or natural disaster or the smaller-scale tragedies that tear at its fabric, many of those activities become impossible or meaningless, while simply meeting needs we once took for granted may occupy much of our lives.

What war correspondents and relief workers report is not only the fragility of the fabric, but the speed with which it can unravel. As we write this, no one can say with certainty where the unravelling of the financial and commercial fabric of our economies will end. Meanwhile, beyond the cities, unchecked industrial exploitation frays the material basis of life in many parts of the world, and pulls at the ecological systems which sustain it.

Precarious as this moment may be, however, an awareness of the fragility of what we call civilisation is nothing new.

‘Few men realise,’ wrote Joseph Conrad in 1896, ‘that their life, the very essence of their character, their capabilities and their audacities, are only the expression of their belief in the safety of their surroundings.’ Conrad’s writings exposed the civilisation exported by European imperialists to be little more than a comforting illusion, not only in the dark, unconquerable heart of Africa, but in the whited sepulchres of their capital cities. The inhabitants of that civilisation believed ‘blindly in the irresistible force of its institutions and its morals, in the power of its police and of its opinion,’ but their confidence could be maintained only by the seeming solidity of the crowd of like-minded believers surrounding them. Outside the walls, the wild remained as close to the surface as blood under skin, but the city-dweller was no longer equipped to face it directly.

The remainder of the essay can be read online: Dark Mountain manifesto.


Paul is the author of One No, Many Yeses and Real England. He was deputy editor of The Ecologist between 1999 and 2001. His first poetry collection, Kidland, is forthcoming from Salmon Poetry. His website is www.paulkingsnorth.net

Dougald writes the blog Changing the World (and other excuses for not getting a proper job). He is a former BBC journalist and has written for and edited various online and offline magazines. His website is www.dougald.co.uk

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Editorial Notes ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The "Eight principles of uncivilisation" are expanded in the Dark Mountain manifesto (also available as PDF or purchased as a limited-edition, hand-stitched pamphlet.

See the site for the blog and information about their upcoming festival May 28-30.

Several Energy Bulletin contributors are on their Blogroll, including John Michael Greer, Sharon Astyk, Rob Hopkins and Dmitry Orlov. Also mentioned are Wendell Berry and Ivan Illich.

George Monbiot recently wrote a column in the Guardian about Dark Mountain Project: I share their despair, but I'm not quite ready to climb the Dark Mountain.

On Common Dreams, Robert C. Koehler wrote a related piece: Dark Green.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Original article available here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Our American Objectives

"Our national goals must be to rejuvenate the domestic economy; transfer the economic basis of our nation from consumptive to productive; recapitalize education and the technologies industries; achieve complete energy independence; move towards renewable energy sources;
restore public confidence in the government's ability to undertake large national infrastructure projects, and re-assert its right to set goals and policies to ensure those projects proceed smoothly; define the overarching standards for a reconstructed America including a federal review of the building and planning codes now in use, and probably the writing of new mandates that set out 21st-century standards and priorities for energy use, urban and transportation planning, and environmental design, which once put into law and accepted into general use, will be very difficult to change; commit funding for a massive 10- or 20-year program that will upgrade or replace failing components of America's infrastructure as the nation is broke (as it was in FDR's day) and this kind of spending needs to be seen as the long-term investment in our economic future that it is; restore a fair, honest, broad-based system of public contracting that will put large numbers of Americans to work on these new projects (and write the new rules in a way that ensures that the firms doing the most innovative work don't have to compete with unfair behemoth corporations like Halliburton and Lockheed for the lion's share of the funding) so that once there is a healthy, competitive construction industry that knows how to build sustainable projects—and is relying on the government to keep it in business—we will get a political constituency that will fight to ensure that the rebuilding will continue for the next several decades, regardless of what political party is in power; use the forces of globalization and information to strengthen and expand existing democratic alliances and created new ones; employ these alliances to destroy terrorist networks and establish new international security structures; lead, through our historic principles, on international cooperative efforts in spreading economic opportunity and democratic liberties, nation building, counter-prolification, and optimum environmental protection and safeguards; and cherish, honor, and protect our history and traditions of liberty and freedoms domestically particularly with respect to the Bill of Rights."

"The renewed social contract for America with its middle class and poor must:
  • Raise the minimum wage still higher and on a regular basis. It has fallen far behind increases in inflation since the 1970s, and that affects higher level wages as well.
  • Encourage living-wage programs by local governments. Governments can demand that their contractors and suppliers pay well above the minimum wage. There is substantial evidence that this does not result in an undue loss of jobs.
  • Enforce the labor laws vigilantly. Minimum-wage and maximum-hour laws are violated to a stunning degree. American workers shouldn't be forced by their employers to understate the number of hours worked or be locked in the warehouse so they can't leave on time. Workers often make only $2 and $3 an hour.
  • Unions are not seeking a free pass to organize secretly when they advocate for open check-offs on cards to approve of a union vote. They are seeking to organize without persistent and often illegal management interference. Penalties for illegally deterring such organizing are so light, it makes little sense for management not to pursue strategies to stop organizing even at the cost of prosecution.
  • Request that trading partners develop serious environmental standards and worker-protection laws. This is good for them, bringing a progressive revolution and a robust domestic market to their countries. It is good for America, which will be able to compete on a more level playing field.
  • Demand that the president, governors and mayors speak up about unconscionable executive salaries and low wages. The influence from the top cannot be underestimated. A president who looks the other way sends a strong signal to business. A president who demands responsible treatment of workers will get a response. Business does not like such attention.
  • These measures should be accompanied by serious investment in modernized infrastructure and energy alternatives, which can create millions of domestic jobs that pay good salaries. It should also be accompanied by a policy that supports a lower dollar -- contrary to Rubinomics -- in order to stimulate manufacturing exports again. Accomplishing this may require a new system of semi-fixed currencies across the globe. The unabashed high-dollar policy of the past twenty years has led to imbalances around the world that have contributed fundamentally to US overindebtedness.
  • And finally, the nation needs more balance on the part of the Federal Reserve between subduing inflation and creating jobs. Americans can live with inflation above 2 percent a year. There is no academic evidence to support a 2 percent annual target, although the Fed has made this its informal target."

The Continuing Case for The Second Bill of Rights for All American Citzens

...from Michael Lind on Salon.com on 11 January 2010 ....

The Case for Economic Rights

FDR said it and it holds 66 years later: There are benefits and opportunities every American should expect to enjoy

Three score and six years ago, the greatest president of the 20th century gave one of his greatest speeches. On Jan. 11, 1944, in a State of the Union address that deserves to be ranked with Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address" and King's "I Have a Dream" speech, President Franklin D. Roosevelt called for recognition of a "Second Bill of Rights." According to FDR:

"This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights -- among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty. As our nation has grown in size and stature, however -- as our industrial economy expanded -- these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness."

Roosevelt did not argue that economic rights had superseded basic, old-fashioned political and civil rights. The argument of authoritarians and totalitarians that economic rights are more important than non-economic liberty was abhorrent to him. Instead, with the examples of the fascist and communist regimes of his time in mind, he argued that the purpose of economic rights was to support and reinforce, not replace, civil and political liberties:

"We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. 'Necessitous men are not free men.' People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all -- regardless of station, race, or creed."

President Roosevelt was not promoting economic rights that were necessarily enforceable in court, but rather economic benefits and opportunities that every American should expect to enjoy by virtue of citizenship in our democratic republic. Many of the rights he identified have been secured by programs with bipartisan support. These include:

"the right to a good education" (the G.I. Bill, student loans, Pell Grants, Head Start, federal aid to K-12 schools) and

"the right of every family to a decent home" (federally subsidized home loans and tax breaks for home ownership). But even before the global economic crisis, the U.S. fell short when it came to full employment --

"the right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation"

-- and a living wage --

"the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation."

Roosevelt's vision was controversial at the time and is contested today. When it comes to providing a safety net for Americans, there are three distinct paradigms, which I would describe as economic citizenship, welfare corporatism and faith-based charity.

Supporters of faith-based charity among "theoconservatives" such as Marvin Olasky argue that modern social insurance like Social Security and Medicare was a mistake. The medieval British and colonial American systems of relying on religious institutions to care for the sick and poor should have been continued and built upon, with government subsidies to "faith-based institutions."

The secular business-class right, however, has shown little interest in faith-based charity, perhaps because it is difficult for rent-seeking bankers, brokers and other private sector actors to extract huge amounts of money from tax-exempt church hospitals and church soup lines. The right's preferred alternative to the progressive vision of economic citizenship is what I call "welfare corporatism." Whereas economic citizenship views protection against sickness, unemployment and old age as entitlements of citizens in a democratic republic, welfare corporatism treats these necessities of life as commodities like groceries or appliances, to be purchased in a market by people who are thought of as consumers, not citizens.

Let's contrast ideal versions of the two approaches. In the ideal America of economic citizenship, there would be a single, universal, integrated, lifelong system of economic security including

single-payer healthcare,

Social Security, unemployment payments and

family leave

paid for by a single contributory payroll tax (which could be made progressive in various ways or reduced by combination with other revenue streams). Funding for all programs would be entirely nationalized, although states could play a role in administration. There would still be supplementary private markets in health and retirement products and services for the affluent, but most middle-class Americans would continue to rely primarily on the simple, user-friendly public system of economic security. As Steven Attewell points out, the Social Security Act of 1935 was intended not merely to provide public pensions for the elderly but to establish a framework for a comprehensive system of social insurance corresponding to President Roosevelt's "right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment." Attewell writes: "We need to go back to the original drawing board -- the Social Security Act of 1935 -- to finish the job it began and create a truly universal and comprehensive social welfare state."

In the utopia of welfare corporatism, today's public benefits -- Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance and, in a few states, public family leave programs -- would be abolished and replaced by harebrained schemes dreamed up by libertarian ideologues at corporate-funded think tanks like the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Tax subsidies would be funneled to insurance companies, brokers and banks. Social Security would be replaced by a bewildering miscellany of tax-favored personal savings accounts. Medicare would be replaced by a dog's breakfast of tax subsidies for purchasing health insurance and personal medical savings accounts. Unemployment insurance would give way to yet another Rube Goldberg scheme of tax-favored unemployment insurance accounts. As for family leave -- well, if you're not wealthy enough to pay out of pocket for a nanny for your child or a nurse for your parent, you're out of luck.

The strongest case for economic citizenship instead of welfare corporatism is economic. Economic citizenship is more efficient and cheaper in the long run, because the government need only meet costs, while subsidized private providers must make a profit. The Democratic and Republican supporters of welfare corporatism justify their system of massive subsidies for for-profit healthcare and retirement security with the claim that market competition will keep down prices. If only that were true. Competitive markets are probably impossible to create, in the highly regulated insurance sector and the highly concentrated financial sector that sells private retirement goods and services.

It follows that a policy of subsidizing oligopolies and monopolies, via government subsidies to consumers, in the absence of government-imposed price controls, is a recipe for cost inflation, as the providers jack up their prices, sending the consumers back to Congress to demand even more public subsidies. By its very nature, welfare corporatism funnels public resources, in the form of tax breaks, to rent-seeking, predatory firms in the FIRE (finance, insurance, real estate) sector, with ever-swelling dead-weight costs on the economy. Welfare corporatism equals corporate welfare.

Unfortunately, most progressives have failed to make the case against the libertarian myth of market competition in the provision of social insurance. All too many, including President Obama, have made the too-clever-by-half argument that the public option would keep prices down by means of market competition. In other words, the center-left has borrowed a bogus argument about competition from right-wing free-market fundamentalism in order to defend a token public program that ceased to be of any interest once Obama and the Democrats in Congress ruled that Americans with employer-provided insurance would be banned from joining the public option. When you're reduced to parroting the opposition's erroneous theories, in the process of begging for a slight modification of the opposition's pet program, you clearly don't have the nerve or the patience to play the long game in politics.

In a response to one of my earlier columns, Will Marshall wonders how I can dare to criticize the legacy of Bill Clinton, a Democrat. My reasons should be clear by now. I am not a partisan Democratic operative focused on winning the next election. I am interested only in strengthening the republic through a gradual expansion of economic citizenship in the tradition of Franklin Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights. If this means criticizing Democratic presidents who expand welfare corporatism instead of economic citizenship, so be it.

As part of his opportunistic policy of triangulation between his own party and the opposition, Bill Clinton joined the Republicans in a three-pronged assault on New Deal economic citizenship. He and the Republican Congress abolished Aid to Families With Dependent Children, a flawed and unpopular means-tested program for the poor that should have been reformed as a national program rather than turned over to the states as the neo-Confederate right insisted. Instead of piecemeal expansion of single-payer healthcare, Clinton pushed a version of employer-based welfare corporatism plus subsidies that came out of the playbook of moderate Republicans like Nixon. And we now know that Clinton secretly agreed to support Newt Gingrich's drive to partly privatize Social Security, in return for dedicating the federal government's imaginary future surpluses to what was left of Social Security. In 2005, Will Marshall argued in favor of private accounts, on the grounds that they would soften up Americans for cuts in Social Security: "If today's workers start saving and investing more in stocks and bonds, the returns they earn would allow us to trim their Social Security benefits later, without reducing their overall standard of living."

While George W. Bush pushed for partial privatization of Social Security, he failed because of massive public opposition. But Bush and the Republican majority in Congress succeeded in enacting the Social Security drug benefit, a flawed but genuine expansion of economic citizenship. Clinton is the only president to have successfully supported the destruction of a New Deal entitlement, while Bush presided over the greatest expansion of the Rooseveltian entitlement system since Lyndon Johnson passed Medicare.

For his part, Barack Obama, like Bill Clinton, rejected single-payer in favor of a moderately conservative welfare corporatist approach to healthcare reform. In contrast, Obama's proposal for student loan reform, an idea discussed in the Clinton years, would move in the right direction, away from welfare corporatism and toward economic citizenship, by replacing subsidized third-party lenders with direct government provision of student loans to needy college students.

Parties are coalitions of interest groups, they are not public philosophies, and presidents, great and minor, are and have to be opportunists. In contrast, reformers only have a chance of succeeding if they stick to their basic principles and keep their eyes on the prize. Progressives should support any politician, Democrat or Republican, who expands economic citizenship to the detriment of welfare corporatism, and they should oppose any politician, Democrat or Republican, who expands welfare corporatism to the detriment of economic citizenship.

Any more questions?

Monetary Cost of Iraq War

06 November 2008

Update and Recap of Election 2008 Results

Election Day 2008 was a one of great historical significance. It was truly something special and amazing to witness and experience. One could describe it as a revolution that took place in a way. America took a giant step forward to realizing the promise and the dream of the ideals long known for what the nation is supposed to stand for. As Robert Reich said so eloquently and simply in his blog: "America, I am proud of you. And I am proud of us."
-
Barrack Obama has been elected the 44th President of the United States of America. What a moment in history for all of mankind and Americans in particular.
-
Most other election results are now final, over 24 hours after polls closed. But a few contests remain undecided at this moment. Many of these key undetermined races are for US Senate seats.
-
OREGON: The Beaver State is horribly slow to count all ballots. At this late point only 79 % of precincts are reporting ! But at least the news is good at this time. In the race for the US Senate seat in Oregon, Democratic challenger Merkley has opened a margin of over 12,000 votes over Republican incumbent Smith of the over 1.444 million votes cast and counted thus far. The results have swayed from one candidate to the other over the last 29 plus hours, so a final result and winner is by no means a sure thing. Stay tuned.
-
MINNESOTA: All 100 % of precincts are being shown as reporting. The US Senate race between GOP incumbent Coleman and Democratic challenger Franken is headed for a recount. At this moment, Coleman leads by just 477 votes out of over 2.861 million cast and counted. The third party candidate, independent Barkley, took 15 % of the votes cast which without question had a major role in how and why this vote turned out so close. It will be at least a few weeks before we know who will be certified by election authorities as having won this election in The Gopher State.
-
GEORGIA: There will be a runoff election in the coming weeks for the US Senate seat in The Peach State. Republican incumbent Saxby Chambliss just missed getting 50 % of the vote. Democratic challenger Martin ended with 47 %, and Libertarian Buckley got 3 %. So voters in Georgia will get to cast a vote again soon for just either Chambliss or Martin. It is this writer's guess that Chambliss will narrowly retain his seat when all is said and done.
-
ALASKA: Clearly this is of the big shockers as voters in The Last Frontier stunningly chose to return longtime GOP incumbent Stevens, recently convicted in the last ten days of seven felony criminal convictions, back to the US Senate. With 99 % of precincts reporting, Stevens leads Democratic challenger Begich by 3353 votes out of over 209,000 cast and counted thus far. What also makes this strange is that with Stevens being re-elected, he will get to serve in the US Senate as it is certain he will be expelled from the institution by a strong majority of members from both parties. This could very well happen in the first week or so in January when the next US Senate is sworn in and seated.
-
The fallout of all this overshadows another corrupt Alaskan politician also winning a close contest to return to the US House. GOP incumbent Young scored a win over Democratic challenger Berkowitz by less than 18,000 votes for a 52 - 44 margin.
-
What will happen next is largely up for conjecture. Alaska Governor Palin could resign and have the new governor, current Lieutenant Governor Parnell, appoint her to fill Stevens' seat in the US Senate when the expected expulsion becomes official. Young could also be moved up to the Senate and Palin, or someone else, could be appointed to the US House at-large seat from AK that Young now and will continue to hold with his seemingly surprising win on Tuesday.
-
If Minnesota, Oregon, and Georgin are not wacky and unbelievable enough, these circumstances that in play in Alaska now and down the road are one for the ages. Once again, stay tuned.
-
IDAHO: We waited as long as we could early Wednesday 5 November morning to see this race through to the end, but it was not to be at that time. But it can now be reported as final. In what can only be called as a big upset, Democratic challenger Minnick scored a narrow win over first time GOP incumbent Sali in the contest for the First Congressional seat from all places, Idaho. The Gem State has been a deep and strong bastion of GOP strength for nearly 20 years and longer, so this result is nothing short of shocking. Minnick ended up winning by a little more than 4200 votes out of the nearly 347,000 cast and tallied. All 100 % of the precincts in this district are reporting. The victory in Idaho by Minnick splits the state's two member US House delegation evenly between the two parties for the first time in over 14 years.
-
CALIFORNIA: In another surprising result, not one incumbent was ousted from the 53 races for the US House seats from The Golden State. At this moment, it appears that not one seat turned over from one party to the other, although results from District Four are somewhat close as the GOP candidate McClintock leads the Democratic candidate Brown by just 451 votes out over 311,000 cast and counted with 100 % of precincts reporting with the Republican incumbent having vacated the seat. It is highly unusual in an election of this magnitude not too have at least some change in a state with such an enormous delegation.
-
NEW MEXICO: The 2008 election turned The Land of Enchantment to solid blue as Democrats swept rather easily all elective offices being contested, four in all. Outside of the New England states of MA, RI, CT, VT, and NH, NM is the only state in the Union that has an elected delegation in both houses of Congress that is completely Democratic. This turn of good fortune will pay off handsomely as NM can expect to do much better in getting additional federal dollars in the next few years for a wide and extensive variety of needs the state and its citizens are experiencing.
-
WYOMING: The opposite of New Mexico is The not so Equality State, Wyoming. The voters in the state gave John McCain his largest margin of victory on Tuesday by a 66 - 32 spread that was even greater than in Idaho and Utah. Wyoming also sent three Republicans to Washington DC by tremendous margins. While the other states in the eight state Mountain States region are largely balanced in their representation to at least a minimum extent, Wyoming voters opted to not participate in the revolution on Tuesday. These decisions will come back to haunt them as the state will see little in the way of any federal dollars outside of for maintenance and repairs in national parks and other federal lands. Any hopes for federal monies to repair, improve, and upgrade Interstates 80, 25, and 90 are now gone as well as monies for water projects, education, and other infrastructural needs that are becoming increasingly pressing across the state. Wyoming is doomed to be a pariah in the next several years in the nation's capital and among its movers and shakers.

The only other delegation to Washington DC that is entirely Republican is from Alaska. Six of seven of the representation from Oklahoma is Republican and five of six from Kansas is Republican.
-
THE SIX NEW ENGLAND STATES: The defeat of GOP incumbent Chris Shays in Connecticut's Fourth Congressional District also completely eliminates any GOP representation from the US House from this six state region. All 22 Congressman from the six states are Democrats, and 10 of the 12 US Senators from the region are Democrats, with only the two US Senators from Maine, Collins and Snowe, from across the aisle. This is a stunning turnaround for this region in just a generation, when the GOP once had a majority of federal legislative seats.
-
THE MID ATLANTIC STATES REGION: The numbers from these five states (NY, NJ, PA, DE, and MD) are nearly as striking as those from the New England states region. 53 of this region's 70 US Representatives are going to be Democrats with the seating of the 111th Congress. In New York its 26 -3 Democrats and 7 -1 for Dems in Maryland. The delegation in the US Senate from this region is 9 -1 for Democrats with Specter from PA the sole Republican. Like New England, this region was once balanced between the two parties even as recently as less than two decades ago. No longer.
-
THE SOUTH ATLANTIC COAST STATES REGION: Changes tilting the balance of power more towards Democrats is also occuring in this part of the nation which consists of five states (VA, NC, SC, GA, and FL). There have huge changes in demographics in the last few decades in particular with many new residents in these states coming up from other parts of the nation, especially from the Northeast. The 111th Congress will consist of 36 Republicans and 32 Democrats, the closest spread since since before 1980. The delegation in the US Senate remains tilted towards Republicans with a 6 -4 edge, but it could turn even if Chambliss falls in GA in the upcoming runoff election.
-
One additional item to consider is South Carolina, clearly the state least like the other four. Throw out the numbers from The Palmetto State and the Dems are tied in the Senate and trail the GOP by one in the House. South Carolina inevitably will change along the lines already seen in the other four states in the region in the coming decade and beyond as it gets discovered by outsiders.
-
DIXIE / OLD CONFEDERACY: These seven states ( AL, MS, LA, TX, AR, TN, and KY) are characterized by an overwhelming strong Republican presence in both the US House and US Senate. 11 of 14 US Senators are Republicans with two of the Dems from Arkansas. In the US House, 39 of the 69 members of the next Congress will be Republicans, but throw out the numbers from TX and its almost even with 19 Repubs and 17 Dems which somewhat still reflects the historical traditional importance of Democrats in the region that goes back several generations.
-
GREAT LAKES - RUST BELT STATES REGION: There are six states that make up this region: WV, OH, IN, MI, IL, WI, and MN. Democrats have considerable strength in these states as 11 of 14 US Senators ( or see Minnesota above) and 46 of 80 Representatives are Democrats. This region ranks fourth behind New England, Mid-Atlantic, and Pacific Coast in strength for Democrats.
-
GREAT PLAINS STATES: Seven states are part of this region: OK, KS, NE, SD, ND, IA, and MO. The region moderates in its political views and outlook the further north one goes. The US Senate has nine Republicans and five Democrats with OK and KS having full GOP Senatorial delegations. 17 of the 28 US Congressman for the next Congress are Republicans. Next to the Dixie / Old Confederacy States region, this is the Republicans strongest area.
-
MOUNTAIN STATES REGION: Long a bastion of GOP strength, results from recent elections are reversing this. For the first time in many years, Democrats will make up the majority of seats in the US Congress with 17 of the 28 seats in the next Congress being Democrats. This is a reversal from the 110th Congress. On the US Senate side, Republicans hold the edge narrowly with nine of the sixteen US Senators starting in 2009.
-
PACIFIC WEST COAST STATES REGION: 46 of 70 congressional representatives and seven of ten Senators (or see Oregon above) in the next Congress will be Democrats, about a 2 -1 margin. Four of the five states of this region (CA, OR, WA, and HI) have a long tradition of being majority Democrat for the most part, while the other state Alaska is just the opposite.

Results for the US House still are yet to be determined in regard to what the final numbers for each party will be.
-
And, in conclusion, clearly the best moment on Tuesday night Election night was when Barrack Obama told his daughters as his acceptance speech at Grant Park in Chicago that he loved them dearly and that they would be getting a puppy to come with them to The White House in January. Very touching and quite sweet bringing a smile to all including yours truly.
-
*****
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)