A few last election thoughts
I've already said what I consider to be the most important races to watch next week. But in fact, the real significance of this election comes down to just the first two -- Osborn's Senate campaign in Nebraska and the billionaire wealth tax in California. If they both lose, then even a big Democratic win will be just another ordinary alternation of power between the two big parties, such as have happened back-and-forth many times over the last few decades without any noticeable impact on the fundamental problem of growing concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny parasitic oligarch class and deepening privation among the masses. It would mean a wait of, at the least, two more years for the next chance at real change.
But if Osborn and the wealth tax both win, it will signal the start of a true break-out from the old pattern. It will mean that large numbers of voters -- majorities in two very different states -- have at least begun to see through the surface conflict between the two parties (nearly meaningless now that they both are dominated by billionaire donors) to the deeper fundamental reality of the class struggle, and are starting to fight back against the oligarchy. Sending a hard-core economic populist to the Senate, and directly taxing billionaire wealth in the largest and richest state in the country, will constitute acts of head-on popular resistance to the oligarchy's power, in a way that a mere transfer of offices in Washington from one billionaire-dominated party to the other never could.
Current polling is mixed. In Nebraska, the most recent poll that Electoral-Vote found worthy of inclusion had Osborn leading 48% to 41%, but most other recent polls have shown it much closer. The California wealth tax now seems to be headed for defeat, perhaps not surprising since the billionaires have spent nearly half a billion dollars on propaganda against it, as well as putting up their own scam initiatives (41 and 42) which, if successful, would negate the wealth tax even if it passes. But polls are not elections. Either one of these races could still go either way.
But whatever happens, I still take heart from the ongoing and vigorous grassroots campaign against data centers -- itself a determined pushback against the efforts of obscenely-wealthy tech-bro corporate oligarchs to further enrich themselves at the expense of the quality of life of communities across the country, even if it's not explicitly expressed in class-struggle terms much of the time. This campaign has brought together ordinary people of widely varying political orientations, and the political parties had nothing to do with it -- the rise of the issue took them totally by surprise, and politicians have only reluctantly and grudgingly gotten on board with it since it goes against the interests of their billionaire donors. It's true populist activism, pushing the parties and politicians rather than following them.
This is not to say that nothing else matters. It's important to restore and protect abortion rights in those states that will be voting on that issue -- this is a fundamental personal freedom. It's important to keep El-Sayed and Paxton out of the Senate. If Texas elects a Democratic governor and/or senator, it would be a clear signal to the Republican party that the path they're on is a dead end and they need to change, as well as breaking the mold of that state's ossified, stagnant one-party politics. Democratic control of Congress would create a chance to rein in some of Trump's abuses. All these things, and others, do matter. But our country's most fundamental problems can be solved only by a vigorous, powerful economic-populist movement. That's why it's Osborn and the wealth tax that are the true potential game-changers next week.


12 Comments:
Agreed. I do not follow polls or place any weight on outlets and pundits that do nothing except hawk them. I've essentially turned off the media until the night of the election. I do intend to watch as the numbers begin to come in.
It would be nice to know I might wake up to a saved democracy.
Fingers crossed and maybe I will do toes too.
I’m so bummed about Prop 40. I hope the polls are wrong!
Well said. I'm looking forward to the results.
Healthy skepticism toward pollsters after the last few cycles is just common sense at this point.
You’ve nailed what actually makes a race a true "game-changer." Flipping committee chairs in D.C. means very little if both benches are beholden to the same donor class, but an Osborn victory in Nebraska and a wealth tax passing in California would be a real, tangible blow to oligarchic power.
And seeing everyday communities organize organically against predatory data centers gives me hope that people are finally waking up to the realities of local resource extraction. Let's see how the dust settles on Tuesday!
Rade: Probably wise to avoid such content for now. For you it would just be a source of stress, and there's not much you can do about it.
I just don't see democracy as being under a serious threat, except from gerrymandering. I'm sure Trump would like to pose such a threat, but he's too incompetent, the system is too resilient, and the guardrails (particularly in the courts) are too strong. Our real main problem remains the same as it has been for forty years.
Anvil: Hoping for the best.
Paula: I hope so too. They have been seriously off in several cases.
Ricko: Thanks. I'll also be watching to see how it all comes out, though unlike some, my whole emotional stability isn't going to depend on the results.
Mr Shife: Thanks. It may be simply impossible to have a functioning party system in a time when a few people control such vast wealth -- they'll always be able to use that wealth to gain control of any top-down organization like a political party. Grassroots mass movements may well be the only option, since they don't have leaders who can be bought off or destroyed by smear campaigns.
In 2024, various accredited pollsters had Kamala in a "blue wave" up to election day. Then the results started to come in...
I like the energy I am seeing. I like the "exit polling" from the Red States; the interviews with people from "Trump Country" sections of America who have no health insurance now and have "buyers remorse". I see all the mud being flailed to try and stop whatever onslaught is happening in an attempt at voter suppression.
But I lived through the agony election night 2024. I am tempering my need for jubilation with historical context. The champagne will be chilled but the whisky handy if things go South.
I share your belief that the California wealth tax, though a one-time thing, would be a big step forward, and I can’t imagine that California voters will turn it down.
I’d also like to see Osborn win. Another interesting race is in Montana, where Seth Bodner, an impressive guy, is close behind his Republican opponent and moving up. I wonder, though, how elected Independents who refuse to caucus with either party will affect which party holds the majority—a crucial issue with regard to judgeships, foreign policy—the entire national agenda.
I am bolstered by the many impressive Democratic candidates who refuse PAC money and rely on small donations. The impact of the grass roots folks fueling these races is far greater than I’ve seen before, and it bodes well for progress toward a more equitable nation.
All we can do at this point is wait and see and keep our fingers crossed for a good outcome.
Rade: That's the problem. Don't forget that it wasn't just Harris. Democrats in general underperformed relative to the polls. Especially these days, there are too many factors that polls can miss. Nothing is guaranteed until we see the actual results.
Annie: Thanks. I still hope the California wealth tax will win, but it's got a formidable campaign of lies and propaganda arrayed against it.
I'm unsure exactly what "caucusing with" a party means, but I think Osborn (or Bodnar) couldn't afford to do it. If the perception takes root that Osborn is "really" a Democrat merely wearing an independent label, like Bernie Sanders, it will destroy the core of what he stands for. We need a genuinely new movement separate from both the old parties. And he can vote as he sees fit on judges or foreign-policy issues regardless of "caucusing".
Mary: That's the best we can do. Fretting never helps anything.
I've gone back and forth between thinking Trump is a tool of that billionaire class or just a loose cannon. One possibility is he STARTED out as a tool and ended up a loose cannon.
Well, one can see that galloping dementia would tend to remake a person into a loose cannon -- especially one in his position.
Post a Comment
Please be on-topic and read the comments policy. Spam, trolls, and fight-pickers will be deleted. If you don't have a Blogspot account and aren't sure how to comment, please see here. Fair warning -- I reject all comments containing any of the following:
1. Support for transgenderism
2. Negativity about Brexit
3. Support for a military draft or compulsory national service
I am not obligated to provide a platform for views I find morally abhorrent. And obviously I'm going to delete anything which is just quoting what an "AI" said. I want to hear from you, not from the always-wrong hallucination machine.
No comments advocating violence against any specific identifiable individual, even jokingly.
Please be considerate -- no political or politics-tinged comments on non-political posts, and no performative cynicism. Finally, please remember that this is a personal blog whose main purpose is to encourage contact from people with similar interests and world-views to mine. I really don't much care for arguing and debating; if arguing and debating is what you want, there are plenty of other places on the internet which welcome that.
From now until the finalization of the election results, no comments claiming the Republicans (or Democrats) will or can "steal" the election. It's pointless to engage with such stuff, and it promotes defeatism, which makes people less likely to vote or otherwise be politically active.
<< Home