Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Politics

Saturday Musings: 70? Seventy!!

Back over Labor Day at the APSA, I told everyone that I was calling for the GOP to pick up 60 seats in the House, mostly as a way of baiting folks to get the hyper-optimistic and the hyper-pessimistic range.  I started to believe the number was possible when Norm Ornstein told me three weeks ago he thought 60 was entirely plausible.  Well, this morning I read that Stu Rothenberg, one of the straight-shooting forecasters along with Charlie Cook, thinks the number could be 70 or more.  Seventy.  I'm tempted to make that my new over-under line, but I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that if the GOP gets to 70 in the House, they'll get the Senate, too. I still say there is going to be a surprise Democrat loser in the Senate right now that no one is watching, like Gillibrand in New York or Wyden in Oregon (go Jim Huffman!!), though Blumenthal remains my favorite pick for a mediocrity who deserves to lose. 

The real wild card that almost no one is talking about is the black vote, which, a well-plugged in political reporter I lunched with on Thursday told me, is even more disappointed with Obama than environmentalists.  Be interesting to see the exit polls on this, especially in urban areas in Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

Meanwhile, to shift subjects radically, is there anything new to learn about Hitler?  Apparently yes.  There's an interesting review in today's Wall Street Journal (subscription required, alas) of a new book by Thomas Weber, Hitler's First War, that examines new documents and evidence showing that, for example, Hitler came to his anti-Semitism only after WWI, and briefly wore Communist garb and supported the short-lived Bavarian Soviet Republic.  Weber says we can't tell whether this was sincere or whether he was infiltrating the radical left.  But above all, Weber's account apparently debunks many of Hitler's claims in Mein Kampf.  
Categories > Politics

Discussions - 7 Comments

The only surprise we are likely to see from the black vote is if they stay home in droves.

Mr. Rothenberg's actual forecast would appear to be that the GOP will gain about 55 seats in the House of Representatives.

I would not wager any of the six Democratic senators he classifies as 'safe' will lose, but if we indulge in wishful thinking, it would be preferable that the surprise be a defeat of Schumer, Leahy, or Mikulski, not Gillibrand.

Richard Blumenthal is not a mediocrity. He is quite impressive. His deficiencies are in his sense of society (one expects borne of his employment history) and in his character.

I think the black vote fluctuates within a narrow band and a Republican candidate of ordinary disposition will collar perhaps 20% thereof in optimal circumstances.

It will be interesting to see what happens, although I think another 2-4 years of GOP/Teabircher results will likely lead to another instance of this:

http://i.imgur.com/1TUfS.jpg

Put aside any Rovean fantasies of a permanent majority (unless the Rand Paul tactics are taken up on a much larger scale) - both the 1994 and 2006 elections are very repeatable.

There are limits to cognitive dissonance, unless education and thinking are labeled as forms of "elitism" - then perhaps a new boundary can be reached...

Memo to Craig Scanlon:

Do me a favor, Craig. Please continue to develop the narrative that the reason for Democrat losses in this election has to do with "cognitive dissonance" on the part of the American people. Do one better: adopt the position of Bill Maher and others who are even less circumspect in their use of language and explain that the losses have to do with the "stupidity" of the American people. Also, please continue to express your faith in the hope that this "cognitive dissonance" cannot go on forever and persist in your frequent attempts to undo it in the form of pointing to things you take to be rantings and ravings on the right. Above all, never even think of leaving our comment section. Thank you. That is all.

Thanks for the "memo" Julie; it looked remarkably similar to a thread comment. Could you humor me, though, and put any future memos on papyrus scrolls with your personal wax seal, and have them delivered by a messenger service?

It would also be nice if you could use my actual words when quoting me (e.g., my supposed use of "stupidity").

I think we've gone over this ground several times before. Suffice it to say, one didn't have to look hard to find examples of conservatives finding stupidity - or at the least, a distinct lack of wisdom - in the American voting public's election of Obama.

Lastly, let's not kid ourselves here Julie. What you or I say on this blog makes approximately zero impact on political outcomes in America (or elsewhere). This blog has a fairly minuscule readership, comprised almost strictly of conservative Republicans & Tea Partiers. I'm here for the thrill of it, not to change any minds. And echo chambers such as this (which have to bite their tongues to restrain themselves from supporting birther and FEMA camp conspiracy theories and the like) are not the place where one has any serious hope of doing that anyway. Further, it's not as though I'm out to encourage some loyalty to the Democrats. At this point I'm hoping your team gets the run of the country for a solid decade or more. Let's see what you can do - drown the government in the tub and go from there.

*ahem* I did use your actual words when quoting you, Craig. "Cognitive dissonance" is yours, no? "Stupidity" was Maher's and I said so. My point was to ask you to adopt that harsher and plainer phrase so that stupid people like me and my fellow conservatives can understand you when you talk. Big words frighten us, dontcha know.

Speak for yourself on your readership. But you'd probably be surprised by the level of your infamy . . . though I doubt much of it is situated in the birther camp--which you know full well has never found any support on this site.

Please continue to enjoy the thrill. Happy to provide it . . . though I think I'm running low on wax & papyrus so you'll just have to continue to take your pleasure in a virtual way.

There are easy ways to check just how popular any given website is, and let's just say that NLT is a long, long way from NRO's Corner.

Here's another guy using the phrase "cognitive dissonance" - a guy concerned with the conservative soul:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/11/palin-backs-the-fringe.html

And get serious about "no support" for birthers. You've embraced Palin and she sees that whole barrel of b.s. as "fair game." Fair - as in reasonable??

http://theweek.com/article/index/103764/Sarah_Palin_Birther

Palin has also recently endorsed the birther-curious Tancredo.

I'm sure you're savvy enough to realize that coming right out and putting one's imprimatur on the whole birther thing is a self-marginalizing move. Have you come out and said that the whole thing is absurd and moronic (which it is)? Not that I can recall.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/15803