Could We Have Predicted What Happened Last Tuesday?

[democraticinsurgent]

Drew Westen, Psychologist and neuroscientist; Emory University from Huffington Post:

Watching the Sunday morning talk shows and the president's various appearances since his "shellacking" on Tuesday, what was clear is that the Republicans and the president seem to have learned the same thing from both this election and from their respective years in power, which country singer Brad Paisley has summed up in song: "Some mistakes are too much fun to only make once."

The Republicans, for their part, took home the message from both the election and their years doubling the national debt and the disparity between the upper 1 percent and the rest of us that Americans want a second helping of economic insecurity and inequality. While claiming a victory for the ideology of low taxes (for the rich) and minimal government (for big corporations), none of them could answer why we would expand tax cuts to the same people whose income has skyrocketed while working and middle class Americans have seen their after-tax income drop since the Bush tax cuts (except with platitudes about "job creators"). Nor could any Republican on television this week say precisely how they would cut spending, particularly if it involved programs that would have to be cut to make the slightest dent in the national debt (e.g., Social Security, Medicare, and defense). What we will undoubtedly see instead are symbolic bills passed by House Republicans aimed at activating latent prejudices by calling for cuts in entitlement programs not associated with politically untouchable groups such as older white people (e.g., Medicaid and food stamps), which would have no appreciable impact on the deficit but a very appreciable impact in dividing the two-thirds of Americans who are living paycheck to paycheck against each other.

For his part, from his post-election press conference through his appearance on 60 Minutes through his inexplicable decision to jet off to Asia in a way that seemed to underscore to the American people his disinterest in both their domestic concerns and the feelings they had just expressed at the ballot box, the president once again illustrated three interrelated hallmarks of his presidency: his ability to endorse nearly every side of an issue, his inability or unwillingness to articulate (whether to the American people or perhaps, more importantly, to himself) any governing philosophy or core set of principles that inform his decisions (e.g., a progressive alternative to the Reagan mantra of "government is the problem, not the solution"), and his allergy to leadership, particularly if it means dealing with conflict or aggression from his political opponents. Over the course of the couple of days he stuck around America long enough to take both sides of the issue, President Obama made clear that he will oppose tax cuts for anyone but the middle class but on the other hand might be willing to extend the Bush tax cuts to the rich, perhaps for a couple years. Like his decision a year and a half ago to cut the stimulus and lard it up with tax cuts the prior eight years had proven to be inert in creating jobs -- a decision that just cost Democrats the House, by "proving" to the American people the uselessness of an economic stimulus and of government more generally -- extending the Bush tax cuts to millionaires would be both bad public policy and bad politics, as all available data suggest that any extension of tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires would be deeply unpopular with voters, who expressed more than anything else their angry populism last Tuesday. The president's differing opinions on whether he believes this is a good area for compromise with congressional Republicans was reminiscent of his various speeches on the importance of deficit spending while cutting the deficit, or his major energy speech on why we have to tackle climate change while expanding oil shale (perhaps the dirtiest, most energy-inefficient fuel ever explored), "clean coal" (which sounds great in West Virginia and would be even better if it existed), and offshore oil drilling (not exactly the most prescient moment in a speech made just two weeks before the BP disaster).

So much more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/could-we-have-predicted-w_b_780250.html

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. I, personnaly, felt inadequate at "neuroscientist."

[thelordofhell]

2. It was "predicted" to be much worse

We were going to lose the House AND the Senate. House losses were projected by some to be over 100.

[WI_DEM]

3. Exactly--we held the Senate by better than many thought and also held down losses in Gov races--

especially when compared to 1994 when we lost 12 governors.

[FBaggins]

6. Can you provide a link to some of those predictions?

I have yet to see a single well-known analyst who predicted a worse night (except Dick Morris of course).

[totodeinhere]

7. Many posters at DU predicted that the Dems would hold the House.

And I saw no predictions that we would lose more than 100 House seats.

[FrenchieCat]

4. IT was predicted for an entire year......

over and over and over again.

In fact, some might suggest that those predictions were meant as manipulation
of public opinion. I am one of those.

[stray cat]

5. Everyone did

[rocktivity]

8. I predicted months ago that the Obama admin was in danger

of making Dem swing voters either swing back or stay home.

:boring:
rocktivity