Millennials reporting that they will definitely vote in the midterms: 28%.
Color me doubtful about that blue wave.
This article might as well have been written by the GOP. The easiest way to pacify the angry citizens is to make sure their focus is on future elections, and never what is happening, or what they (we) could be doing now.
Typical Dim Propaganda. It totally focuses on party affiliation and does not look into the biographies and issue platforms of the candidates while calling the three pictured Dims “progressives,” which they aren’t. (Though any candidate of almost any stripe is more progressive than any Rethug).
It’s quite possible that candidates with the the Dim label will win the House, though not the Senate. Some governorships are a toss-up.
But in any case, these candidates differ in label, but not kind. They are, at best, Duopoly Heavy Syrup or Duopoly No Sugar.
The result will yield, at best, a ripple in the Purple Swamp. Its waters will continue to stink and pollute all the same.
It’s no wonder so many millennials, like their predecessors, opt out of the Kabuki Kongressional and Duopoly Theatre Same-Same Perennial Ball.
Right On, Tom -
And don’t forget that old saying, “Don’t Count Your Chicken-Shits Before They Are Pooped.” The RePoopLickens are doing everything they can get away with – and with Kavanaught now on the Subprime Court that will be plenty – to rig the upcoming election. And with Chucky Schumer “leading” the DamnocRats, what real difference will it make anyway?
Well, it does call our attention to the fact that the South hasn’t exactly been
set free –
Neither have the women of the South been set free –
Carter was more successful in courting Southern votes than any Democrat since
Franklin D. Roosevelt '04 – Carter carried 10 out of 11 states of the Old Confederacy
How much did Carter’s “born again” religious influence have on the election?
Only know what I hear about the South on the internet which isn’t much –
but which raises a question as to where Southerners post on the internet?
Only on right wing websites?
Here’s an article that seemed interesting; didn’t get all the way through it –
Religion advanced the cause of slavery, yet it also inspired slave rebellion. Religion comforts and sustains suffering people, and a South of slavery, Civil War, poverty, racial discrimination, economic exploitation, ill health, and illiteracy surely needed that crucial support. As the South went through the slow and sometimes agonizing process of modernizing, religion provided justification for the wealthy to profit from economic development, but it also gave meaning to those bearing the burdens of economic change without proper recompense. Throughout such changes, religious organizations remained central institutions of southern life.
Religious traditions that are outside the predominant evangelical Protestantism have special significance within particular places in the South. Ethnic groups planted and sustained religious traditions in regional enclaves outside the evangelical Protestant hegemony. Roman Catholics have dominated in south Louisiana, dating from sixteenth and seventeenth century French settlement, creating a unique landscape in the South, but Catholics also heavily influenced life in Hispanic south Texas, Cuban areas of Florida, and along the Gulf Coast with its early French and Spanish settlement. Catholics were also a historic presence in Maryland and Kentucky, even nurturing there a prominent twentieth-century spiritual presence in Thomas Merton. Jews have been small in numbers in the South, which has helped shape their peculiar patterns of accommodation and resistance to the overall culture. The geography of Jews in the South is usually depicted as a predominantly an urban one, to some degree, with notable communities in such cities as Atlanta, Memphis, Charleston, and Miami, but Jews have been a perhaps even more significant presence in small towns throughout the South. Central Texas has had a sizeable Lutheran presence, dating from German settlement in the 1800s, while the Carolina Piedmont had been historic home to Quakers, Moravians, and other Protestant dissenters.
Religion and the US South
It would be of interest to know whether any, of the possible incipient Democratic seats might be filled by Democrats who had not might as well be Republican.
While it is clear enough that each of us might resolve that question somewhat differently, interested authors might facilitate the process by classifying candidates by the policies that they do or do not have rather than by party affiliation, since that has ceased to be closely affiliated with policy.
I am not alone in wanting to know these things:
- Are any of the candidates anti-war?
- Are any of the candidates anti-corporate?
- Do any of the candidates palpably support economic equality?
- Do any of the candidates support single payer in some form?
- Are any of the candidates willing to vote for their constituents against their party?
- Are any of the candidates actively in favor of civil rights?
- Have any of the candidates spoken believably against current extrajudicial executions, indefinite imprisonments, and torture?
- Do any of the candidates palpably favor a return to a free press, including a stop to the persecution of whistleblowers and journalists?
- Have any of the candidates spoken out against election fraud and gerrymandering by both parties or their own?
The list goes on, but most people here could probably populate it as easily as I.
I remember a day when many of us were more convinced that Democratic candidates were at least more concerned about these things than Republicans. Had we been more careful about that assumption then, we might not have to check it so strenuously now.
Between 1960 and 1972, the “solid Democratic South” shifted from Democratic to Republican, with no shift in its policies and no associated shift in its politics otherwise. With the Kennedys and LBJ and finally with McGovern, the party shifted towards civil rights, civil services, and–finally and belatedly–away from war. The conservative South changed parties rather than change position.
Were the conservative South to shift back, that bears no promise of a move towards anything progressive. It means that the Democratic Party has rejected its progressive base sufficiently to welcome a pro-war, authoritarian, and corporatist element.
If that involves a shake-up in Southern politics, it will not be because it has a stabilizing influence elsewhere.
Paraphrasing Oddball: “no more negative waves…”
Well stated and so true. The South shifted their parties but not their political agenda.
Meanwhile, Bill and Hillary are doing a celebrity type tour trying to rehabilitate her standing within the party and with the likes of (Up)chucky Shumer and Nancy (the pill) Pelosi waiting in the wings to lead the hoped for “blue wave” this electoral surf will be polluted with a “red tide” of corporate money no matter who wins it.