Republicans stomped in state, local elections

[Severian]

First, the simple good news:
California Voters Reject Schwarzenegger's Referenda (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-election9nov09,0,3181440.story?coll=la-home-local)

Schwarzenegger had called a special election to try to push through 4 reactionary laws by popular vote. They would have expanded the governor's executive power and the capitalist state's interference in the internal business of labor unions.

A lot of other reactionary crap has been enacted this way in California. But not this time. All four were voted down.

Thanks in large part to a campaign by California unions, which correctly called for a "no" vote on all of them.

Next, the news which ain't good or bad exactly, but I have a question about it:
The Democrats did well almost everywhere in this election. (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/11/10/heartened_democrats_look_to_2006_elections/) The Boston Globe calls it a "near-sweep". They won both governor's races and a number of the mayoral races. And of course the California referendum is part of this picture of Republican defeat.

So: to everyone who's said Bush took power in a "coup" in 2000, that the result of the 2004 elections was predetermined, that the U.S. has some kind of fascist or fascist-like regime.....how is this possible?

And what will you say if the same thing happens in 2006 and/or 2008?

[JKP]

Fuck the democrats.

[Severian]

Sure. Doesn't answer my question, though.

[Poum_1936]

So: to everyone who's said Bush took power in a "coup" in 2000, that the result of the 2004 elections was predetermined

Elections were rigged both times. Would you like proof? Does not mean this country is fascist though. Our government is sure as hell reactionary though, our Vice President is openly calling for a measure to let the CIA go to extraordinary measures to get certain information i.e. usage of torture.


Thanks in large part to a campaign by California unions, which correctly called for a "no" vote on all of them.

It was the masses that made this happen. I had people calling me twice daily, at least. Had a person come to my door. Got at times two to three flyers in the mail daily from various organizations. The UFCW and AFL-CIO also went all out. Since this would be hurting them, they made an extra effort.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 05:17 AM
Elections were rigged both times. Would you like proof?
No, I've heard all that many times.

My question is: why not this time? And what will you say if the "Bush regime's" election-stealing powers magically evaporate in 2006 and 2008?

How will people explain away statements like "People who steal elections and believe they're on a `mission from God' will not go without a fight." (WCW/RCP) or "The end of real elections and any semblance of democratic representation in a democratic Republic is here!" (Citizens for Legitimate Government) or "as if any other outcome was possible" (some Socialist Party guy on the "theft" of the 2005 election)...etc., etc.......

[praxis1966]

Well, the 2006 mid-term elections are really irrelevant. Nobody, I don't think, is accusing the Bush people of fixing House, Senate, or gubanatorial elections. The 'rigging' only applies to the presidential elections. At any rate, I don't think that any amount of ballot tampering is going to get Dick "Darth Vader" Cheney elected.

[Simotix]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 02:45 AM
Well, the 2006 mid-term elections are really irrelevant.
It is not really that irrelevant. Mid-term elections more or less show if there will be a divided government, which can be important.

[anomaly]

I never said either one was 'rigged', and it's kind of silly to believe such conspiracy stories. I only say that Bush lost the 2000 election, because he did: the 'electoral college' is a joke.

Besides, why would the GOP need to 'rig' elections? The Dems aren't too different from the GOP these days. NAFTA was passed under mighty Clinton's leadership! Both parties support free trade, and a neoliberal economic policy. LBJ pushed us into Vietnam (atleast the massive troopt movements).

That is the real conspiracy in modern US politics: the Dems have shifted so far right that your vote doesn't matter. You can go ahead and vote for a third party, but chances are that 95% of the 50% of Americans who vote haven't heard of them.

To sum things up, JKP said it best: fuck the Democrats.

[Guerrilla22]

Unfortunately, the Republican still control both houses, the Presidency and pretty soon the Supreme Court. In other words, they now have 3 of 3 branches of government. The democrat can win all the local elections they want. Most policy that actually matters comes out of the federal government.

[Simotix]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 12:38 AM
I never said either one was 'rigged', and it's kind of silly to believe such conspiracy stories. I only say that Bush lost the 2000 election, because he did: the 'electoral college' is a joke.
The electoral college has its flaws, yes. However, the point of it is so that one person can not just stay in one populated area and steal the show.

[YKTMX]

I'll make my decision on the Dems in 2008. If they, as seems unlikely, run on an (even mildly) anti-occupation ticket, I'll support the candidate.

What seems more likely is that we'll get a 'stay the course' Dem like Clinton versus some 'cut and run' Republican.

Which will put the 'progressives' who supported Kerry under some pressure.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 04:31 AM
Next, the news which ain't good or bad exactly, but I have a question about it:
The Democrats did well almost everywhere in this election. (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/11/10/heartened_democrats_look_to_2006_elections/) The Boston Globe calls it a "near-sweep". They won both governor's races and a number of the mayoral races. And of course the California referendum is part of this picture of Republican defeat.

So: to everyone who's said Bush took power in a "coup" in 2000, that the result of the 2004 elections was predetermined, that the U.S. has some kind of fascist or fascist-like regime.....how is this possible?

And what will you say if the same thing happens in 2006 and/or 2008?
Yawn. A "near-sweep" in a series of electoral contests that were expected to be a Democratic "near-sweep" by anyone paying attention. The reality is that nothing changed; neither the Democrats nor the Republicans really gained a thing from the election. What you saw was a change of faces, quite literally: Corzine for McGreevey; Kaine for Warner. The only "gain" listed in the BoGlo article is that the Republican mayor of Great Falls, Montana, was defeated by a Democrat. Even the ouster of the Dover, Pennsylvania, pro-creationist school board was not a gain but a return to the status quo.

So, how is this possible? That nothing changed -- that each side came out of the election with essentially what they went into it with? You don't need a slide rule or a calculator to figure that out.

And, in terms of 2006 and 2008, we'll have to see. If the bourgeoisie decides that the Democrats would be better managers of their affairs, it doesn't change a damn thing. A charade of democracy at this point is still a charade. It doesn't mean anything in the context of the USA-PATRIOT Act, the "war on terror" or the corporatist class warfare being waged.

Regime change will still begin at home.

Miles

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 08:50 PM
Well, the 2006 mid-term elections are really irrelevant. Nobody, I don't think, is accusing the Bush people of fixing House, Senate, or gubanatorial elections. The 'rigging' only applies to the presidential elections.
That's an odd inconsistency, then. How could bourgeois democracy still prevail for everything but the White House?

It's local and state officials who count the ballots for presidential elections. And I don't see how anyone can go on talking of the "Bush regime" and claim bourgeois democracy is dead if Congress is controlled by the Democrats.

IMO it's improbable that anyone will. They'll have to bury their previous statements in one or another way.

For example, the Communist League website said after the 2004 election that "When Kerry capitulated to the Bush regime the day after the election, and more than a week before all remaining votes were to be counted, it was more than the end of the electoral contest, it was the end of any illusions people might have of using the Democratic Party to fight against the corporatist agenda of the Bush regime."link (http://www.communistleague.org/bulletin001.html)

But then the "Communist League" account posts here that "If the bourgeoisie decides that the Democrats would be better managers of their affairs, it doesn't change a damn thing." When the Republicans win, it has this great earthshaking significance, but when the Democrats win, it means nothing. That's not sustainable.

But for a group that small, if the embarassment gets too intense, they can just shut down and reopen under another name. The RCP may have bigger problems.

[h&s]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 12:40 PM
I'll make my decision on the Dems in 2008. If they, as seems unlikely, run on an (even mildly) anti-occupation ticket, I'll support the candidate.


And you call me reactionary. :rolleyes:
Yes, lets just carry on voting for the same parties, maintaining the status quo becuase they offer one reform in their platform.

[bolshevik butcher]

Well, it's nice to here that these decress got rejected. Bet he won't risk doing that again. Are the unions getting their act together in america or was this a one-off? As for the democrats, surley it is better to have a more progressive candidate in office. I'm not saying socialsits should go out and campaign for them, but they could critically support them over a republican candidate.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Severian+Nov 15 2005, 10:59 AM--> (Severian @ Nov 15 2005, 10:59 AM)It's local and state officials who count the ballots for presidential elections. And I don't see how anyone can go on talking of the "Bush regime" and claim bourgeois democracy is dead if Congress is controlled by the Democrats.[/b]

There are none so blind as those unwilling to see. In Severian's case, however, it is merely a case of being unable to see. The ego gets in the way.


[email protected] 15 2005, 10:59 AM
For example, the Communist League website said after the 2004 election that "When Kerry capitulated to the Bush regime the day after the election, and more than a week before all remaining votes were to be counted, it was more than the end of the electoral contest, it was the end of any illusions people might have of using the Democratic Party to fight against the corporatist agenda of the Bush regime."link (http://www.communistleague.org/bulletin001.html)

But then the "Communist League" account posts here that "If the bourgeoisie decides that the Democrats would be better managers of their affairs, it doesn't change a damn thing." When the Republicans win, it has this great earthshaking significance, but when the Democrats win, it means nothing. That's not sustainable.

Me thinks Comrade Egotrip needs a remedial reading course. Twenty points to anyone who can spot the obvious leap of "logic" (read: faith) between the first and second passages above.

Miles

[YKTMX]

And you call me reactionary.


Where did I say that?


Yes, lets just carry on voting for the same parties, maintaining the status quo becuase they offer one reform in their platform.

Pulling American troops out of Iraq as opposed to permanent occupation is not a 'reform'. It is a blow against the imperialist agenda in the middle east.

[h&s]

Pulling American troops out of Iraq as opposed to permanent occupation is not a 'reform'. It is a blow against the imperialist agenda in the middle east.
Yes, but that does not outweigh the negative connotations of voting democrat does it?
A mass movement against the war would bring with it many positives, but a democrat willingly opposing the war would negate that.


And you call me reactionary.

Where did I say that?
In the Respect thread, but it doesn't matter.

[YKTMX]

Yes, but that does not outweigh the negative connotations of voting democrat does it?

Yes.


In the Respect thread, but it doesn't matter.

No, it does. I just looked through that thread and I didn't call you 'reactionary' - so stop lying, please.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 02:05 PM
Pulling American troops out of Iraq as opposed to permanent occupation is not a 'reform'. It is a blow against the imperialist agenda in the middle east.
Tomato Tomahto. Some reforms can be blows to capitalist interests, and advance the interests of the working class.

That doesn't mean that campaign promises, including promises to get out of Iraq, are a good reason to vote for capitalist politicians!

You have no guarantee that this promise would be kept, for one thing. If the U.S. is forced to withdraw from Iraq, it'll be a product of a rising class struggle, not a gift from a benevolent capitalist politician.

[YKTMX]

I think it would be a betrayal of the Iraqis to let the chance of an end to the occupation go by just because we don't like the guys doing it. It seems to me that would not be in the internationalist spirit.

[Stonewall]

DUDE!!!!!!!!!!!

GORE WON THE POPULAR VOTE IN 2000!!!! HE HAD THE POPULAR VOTE, IT WAS THE SUPREME COURT AND THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE THAT FUCKED HIM, SO YES, THESE GOP ASSHOLES DID STEAL THE ELECTION AND [OUR] DEMOCRACY WAS PROVEN A SHAM -------- THE POPULAR VOTE DIDN'T COUNT WORTH SHIT.

[Stonewall]

AND THEY MIGHT NOT "RIG" ELECTIONS

BUT WHAT'S REDISTRICTING DISTRICTS TO FAVOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 04:55 AM
I think it would be a betrayal of the Iraqis to let the chance of an end to the occupation go by just because we don't like the guys doing it. It seems to me that would not be in the internationalist spirit.
You haven't explained how a campaign promise represents "a chance to end the occupation."

The same line of thinking you're using, was used to argue for supporting Lyndon Baines Johnson as a peace candidate, opposing the warmonger Goldwater. Etc Etc.

It assumes that some other force can substitute for the role of the working class in liberating ourselves. "Substitutionism", I believe your party (the British SWP) likes to call it.

And the U.S. House of Representatives just voted 403 to 3 against a resolution for immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Both parties in fact support the occupation, and will go on doing so regardless of vote-catching rhetoric or tactical disagreements.

[Stonewall]

BTW, I did vote for John Kerry, as I can't stand even seeing Bush on TV. Being a representative for the ruling class, or not, Clinton was way better, as he had a brain, some charm, mingled with "commoners", ate McDonalds, was funny and highly intelligent. Bush, on the other hand, isn't funny, isn't a comedian, is flat out DUMB and by God, I don't know what he eats [pretzels with his beer?]

However, unless Hillary Clinton runs in 08', I'm going to vote Green by default.