Rather than pols using wedge issues against the voting populace, in this case we seem to have the wedge issue running the electorate or polotical apparratus as a whole instead. That wedge issue is corporatism, and it really does seem to really flush out the true loyalties and goals of both parties. It's not new, but I've never seen it so obvious before.

And war will justify even more austerity and police/surveillance state in the "Homeland."

and trade deals like the TPP would be MUCH easier to pass with a Republican majority in the legislature. Those are things that Obama would NOT veto because he's on record as being in favor of them too.

Kiss social security as we know it goodbye if this scenario comes to pass. Capitalists will blitz legislation to privatize this cash cow for themselves in the old disaster mode.

Michigan is a battleground state and I have been seeing more support from the big dogs than I have EVER seen.

Julie

Do you have specific people in mind?

I would love to hear the answer!

the safety net to be slashed further. We have to insure that the MIC doesn't go begging, and the billionaire job creators can sleep comfortably at night.

Because as long as they make the right connections while they're in office, they're guaranteed a cushy job as a lobbyist or a private contractor or a hedge fund manager once they leave their government job behind.

Cuomo is a total jerk who, besides being the opposite of progressive, and the epitome of arrogance, supports Republicans when it suits him. Not to mention I'm a state worker facing zeros in contract negotiations with him. However, the Republican Astorino is no less a jerk, and will probably institute even worse policies than Cuomo. I'd love to cast a protest vote but realize that's probably tantamount to voting Republican, and we all know how well that turned out in 2000. So I will probably end up voting for Cuomo despite my feelings.

There was no good reason for Cuomo to win the primary, but at this point he beats a kick in the head. Barely.

The only redeeming feature of another Cuomo term is that he'll owe DiBlasio bigtime(Since DiBlasio ratfucked Zephyr Teachout by coming out strong for Andrew in the primary-something that, along with his HRC endorsement, suggests strongly that DiBlasio cut a deal with the party regulars to be a "gatekeeper"-a progressive that fights to keep other progressives from beating centrist hacks).

Even though her views on urban issues are pretty much the same as Giuliani's and Koch's.

Put that together with his big support for Cuomo against the progressive in the gubenatiorial primary, what else do you get but "gatekeeper"?

He can't be doing things like that and still WANT the numbers of progressive elected Dems to grow.

I am sorry but you are wrong here.

given that she was the most conservative candidate in the whole primary.

Here's the big question with him...if he backed Cuomo against Teachout this year and will back HRC in '16, is he EVER going to back other progressives for any offices above the NY City Council? Is he always going to back the establishment hack in any race above that level?

Don't get me wrong, I still like DiBlasio, but this aspect of his choices has always bothered me(especially given that Cuomo bashed DiBlasio from the far right on the charter schools issue).

Second she was not the most conservative in the 2000 ny senate primary so i don't know what you mean.

They are very good friends and they believe in one another so that is why he is supporting her.

Just because you don't like her that does not mean every other progressive feels the same way as you do.

de Blasio supported Cuomo because it would have caused bad blood if he did not.

I voted for Teachout because i was protesting Cuomo on fracking. We all knew she wasn't going to win.

I mean, she was Moynihan's chosen successor, and Moynihan's whole political career was about pushing the Democratic Party in New York as far to the right as possible...after he had made his name slandering black women for being strong enough to hold their families together when a lot of black men had been broken by Jim Crow and redlining, rather than praising those women for showing that strength.

DiBlasio could have stayed neutral in the gubenatorial thing. He owed Cuomo nothing after Cuomo threw in with that unionbusting reactionary charter schools harpy.

de Blasio's choice for gov was political I agree but he coukd n8t go against the siting governor. In 94 Rudy endorsed Coumo over Pataki and when Pataki won this city suffered because of their hatred of each other.

Cuomo is vindictive and petty so de Blasio did what he had to.

In 2000 we had a primary and the man running against Hillary was the more conservative one.

I don't have a clue what your talking about with Moynihan.

So progressives should kowtow to corporatist Dems because they will be "...vindictive and petty..."? That means the progressives will NEVER have a voice because ALL neo-liberals are "vindictive and petty". They're ideologues after all. Since their beliefs are the ONLY things that matter, not facts or results, they will NEVER be OK with being challenged on their beliefs.

THIS kind of shit is the reason that a revolution is necessary and capitalism must go. It's also the reason that electoral strategies will never work over the long run.

caused major issue so that is why he did not.

He is supporting Clinton because heknows, loves, and believes in her.

of corporatists in both parties is divided government, not majorities. "Gridlock" is their excuse for continuing to shove a predatory corporate agenda down our throats in the guise of "compromise," even though the "compromise" never resembles anything either side out in the country wants.

They know that any party with strong majorities cannot continue to claim to be unable to respond to the will of the People,

The con game is very familiar by now:

Perhaps the administration is not really all that into having progressive majorities in Congress.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=337938

For so long we mysteriously fell short of Democratic votes for filibuster reform.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021809132

The Democratic Party’s deceitful game
http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/

And all the examples of bizarre support for candidates from the other side, or withdrawal of support from our own candidates who could have won, or attacks on the party's own base.

Both sides work to make sure that neither party wins too much. They get away with it because they keep us hyperpartisan and misperceiving their intentions and goals. We are taught to believe, and we want to believe, that our corporate-backed party leaders see elections the same way we do: as a battle between two fundamentally different parties, one of which we desperately want to win over the other.

They don't want us to realize that things have changed. They want us to remember when corporate influence lived only in one party and to maintain the old assumption that they have a deep attachment to one side or the other, too. They want us to assume that they are as invested in the partisan game as we are, when the truth is that their first loyalty isn't to party at all.

Their first and only loyalty is to continuation of the corporate agenda that enriches and empowers them. They don't give a whit which side actually wins, as long as the agenda can be continued and advanced. They don't want us to realize that they now happily use *both* parties, and manipulate our attachment to them, in order to keep that agenda going.

To pretend that politics today is about one party versus another is to entirely miss how corporatism works and fall for the theater and the con game. We have to keep remembering the corporate money that floods Washington on both sides of the aisle and watch *policies,* not party.

K&R, and I think this should go to the Greatest Page. I think this is a critically important OP. We have to rethink the game that's actually being played here.

As Jim Hightower mused: When it comes to actual policy; it's not left vs right, but up vs down. We're the "down" BTW.

The real power incentives aren't always in the office itself.

Many examples of career politicians on both sides who never seem to give up any 'power.'

gerrymandering might keep the house in GOP hands. but why is the senate such a close thing?

I have heard that the strategy is that if the repubs take it this year, there will be a backlash and 2016 will be easier for the Dems. We have gotten little help in CA against Hunter and we had a viable candidate. Glad to see the post re Michigan. Maybe it is a case of picking fights. I can understand that. And yes. disappointing when the national folk seem oblivious to local stuff. I worked my precinct. Good luck with your canvassing.

suppression. I we let them win this election many of us will not be able to vote in the next one. This is not just any other election.

Not most of them anyway. The midterms give them perfect cover to blame the people for not voting.

Yet that is the root of it all.

lived in both Iowa and Nebraska and there is a difference between getting elected there and in MA or NY. There are different issues and interests that have to be addressed.

By abandoning Alison Grimes in Kentucky. As much respect as I've gained for Rick Weiland, in particular, South Dakota is still pretty damn red.

and perhaps that make a bit of sense, but the next couple of years would be a living hell.