Strange day, when all sorts of things are mixed in juxtaposition.

Republican Ron Paul and Democrat Alan Grayson getting a terrific transparency of the Fed bill out of Committee and it will for certain pass the House (many progressive Democrats voting against it).

The Page putting up Sarah Palin & Paul Krugman anti-TARP and Bailout Quotes that are similar (good for both of them).

You gotta love this photo up on Huffington Post:

The balding older one for Obama & community, and the younger hippie dude against Obama & socialism.

I picked up both the Plouffe and the Palin books yesterday, so expect some upcoming posts on the '08 history.

We are looking at the biggest potential shake-up of the US Senate in decades in 2010. I now count 10 seats that Democrats could lose, 5 seats that Republicans could lose, and at least 5 seats where a primary challenger could knock off the incumbent.

I have a pretty good string going with a 100% correct record for predicting US Senate races over the past few cycles, and I've got to work on directly as a consultant or indirectly through the DSCC on over a dozen of those wins-- its been a great run. But 2010 looks like its going to be a real wildcard.

This is sorta out of character for this particular Senate class, as I pointed out previously (Senate 2010). A partisan change of 4 in '04, a change of 0 in '98, a change of 0 in '92, but then the 1980's: a change of 8 in '86 and a change of 12 in '80.

The way things are shaping up, I don't put it out of the realm of possibility that the Democrats could lose 10 seats in the Senate at this point in time; but I also don't think its out of the realm of possibility that there's little or no change in the partisan Senate makeup.

The point is, that when we are looking at a landscape where there could be as many as 15-20 new Senators elected, and still a year away, it certainly looks like a huge shake-up year.

Here's the states as I see it right now, which are probably competitive through primary or GE:

IL, DE, MO, KY, NH, FL, OH, AR, CA, CO, CT, NV, NY, ND, PA, AZ, UT.

There are 8 Democratic incumbents on the vulnerable list: Lincoln, Boxer, Bennet, Dodd, Reid, Gillibrand, Dorgan, and Specter.

Not a single incumbent Republican is on the vulnerable list at the moment.

There are 7 open toss-up seats: 2 Democratic and 5 Republican held.

And in primaries, those vulnerable are: Lincoln (D-AR); Bennet (D-CO); Specter (D-PA); McCain (R-AZ); and Bennett (R-UT).

The potential swing is wide, from 10 potential pick-ups by Republicans to 5 potential pickups by Democrats, and 4 potential primary upsets.

The spintasic idea of using the remaining TARP money to payoff a part of the deficit is being laid at Geithner's feed, as his idea.

Dean Barker points out that this is a gimmick:

Here's an apt comment from TBI coverage:

Update [2009-11-19 11:4:28 by Jerome Armstrong]:

The thing I like about when politicians get trashed and thrown into the gutter, losing everything, is that when they get back up, they tend to be a bit more honest. Case in point, Eliot Spitzer: Obama Economic Policies Ineffective, A Continuation Of Bush:

I think "continuation of Bush" isn't really what this is; its more just a continuation of Bush-Clinton-Bush, and probably even before that, with Reagan. Obama needs to break out of that mold-- its what led us to this point.

I've been reading through this national Q poll, and don't really think the Obama numbers (approval below 50%) mean that much statistically, as his numbers are high among Democrats, low among Republicans, and about tied among Independents-- right where I would expect things to be given the times.

Now, the Afghanistan numbers more interesting as its more in-depth than the usual things. In particular, it tells you exactly how the presumed surge there will be framed, and how it will not be framed.

As a reason why we need US soldiers to die over there, and why we need to drive up the already high deficit:

It won't be argued that its to build a stable democratic government in Afghanistan; or that the US would be successful in such a measure.

It will be argued that its necessary to eliminate the threat from terrorists operating from Afghanistan; but not that the US will be successful in such an effort.

Its just time to decide; and since the only options on the table all involve escalation, failure is not an option considered, but instead presumed. The incremental 'win' (if you are scraping the bottom of the loyalty barrel and really need one) is that a vague notion of an 'exit plan' has emerged from the shadows.

Back to the poll. What is electorally interesting, in regards to backing the surge, isn't that Democrats and Republicans line up opposite, and Independents reside in the middle; but whom among the Democrats is most strongly against the escalation in Afghanistan-- and that has big implications for Obama.

Military households are not in majority support of our being involved in Afghanistan; with 48% in support, and 42% of those family members saying no, the US should not even be involved with Afghanistan right now. 64% of the military households don't believe that the US will succeed in nation-building in Afghanistan, and 55% of the military households doubt the US will succeed in rooting out the terrorists in Afghanistan.

Those numbers reflect a serious problem with military morale in regards to our being involved in Afghanistan.

Moving into the matter of escalation is where I see big political problems emerge. When asked if Obama should send the additional combat troops General Stanley McChrystal has requested, the strongest voice of opposition saying "no" is among Black (73%) and Hispanic (60%) respondents.

And further, when asked how long troops should remain in Afghanistan, those responding 'less than 2 years' overall, is 72% for Democrats; with Black (75%) and Hispanic (61%) numbers just as high.

One thing I've noticed with Obama is that he has always recognized when he's about to lose his credibility of what got him where he is today-- his anti-war stand on invading Iraq.  He never once to my knowledge spoke a specific word about sending more troops into Afghanistan until after the nomination was secured, and then only two bridages. But often, and in much detail, he laid out his plan of deescalation from Iraq.

When John Edwards tried to move to the left of Obama over supplemental funding of the war, Senator Obama, who previously always voted in favor, quickly and predictably turned on a dime and found his voice of opposition. And he quickly covered back afterwards, and led the whip for his own subsequent war supplemental. I don't see anyway possible that Obama is going to change paths right now on Afghanistan-- he built the road and leads the surge. However, I believe he's finally sensing the dangerous path he's chosen with owning the Afghanistan war, and is looking for a way out. The numbers above show he has too.

That is, Obama's real '12 base, the one he cannot lose (and which really doesn't factor into '10 measuring) is the Black and Hispanic vote. He has to get equal those '08 numbers to win the '12 election in places like PA, FL, OH, MI, IN, VA, NC, NV, CO, and NM. He can afford to piss off liberal white anti-war voters, the progressive GLBT voters, and feminist single-women voters, but major policy reason for the massive turnout for Obama of Black and Hispanic voters, especially among the youth, was because of his position of getting the troops out of Iraq. And not for deficit or idealistic reasons, but simply to stop the deaths.

I'm already, after seeing the NJ and VA results, pessimistic that we will see those minority change voters participating in '10. Everyone assumes though, that '12 is another matter, and it will be switched on like a light bulb. The worst case scenario for ending 2010 for Democrats is to lose about 3-5 seats in the Senate, 15-20 in the House. Still in power, no momentum, and bogged down in a Democrat war.

I know there are some that believe that if the economy rebounds, all will be well and Afghanistan won't matter as much. Precisely the opposite of the truth though-- that the reason why Democrats aren't making as loud a noise over Obama leading an escalation in Afghanistan is because the economy and jobs situation is so dismal. There's not a way out of the occupation of Afghanistan other than leaving, so at the least, we have Obama now wondering and asking allowed, 'whats the exit plan' here... and make it 1-2 years max...

I happen to agree with Tina Brown, that if Palinhaters would just get over seeing Sarah Palin as a politician, which she never will be again, and just view her as the celebrity propogandist she is, life will be much better.

Case in point, the original birther-- Andrew Sullivan: "I simply asked her and the campaign to provide easily available proof that she indeed was the biological mother of Trig." If you need more proof: "I'm very sorry to say, it's come to this: can you confirm on the record that Trig Palin is Sarah Palin's biological son?"

I had to LMAO at Wonkette's take on his recent 'timeout' for deep Palin thought.

OK, back to being serious.... my first thought was that The Atlantic has had a pause about becoming the face of this embarrassment, and have (again hypothetically) told Sullivan to reign it in? Palin certainly elevates the right enemies for her own use.

The ironic thing about this turn is that the McCain campaign made a big splash about Obama being a "celebrity" instead of a serious candidate; and look at what he's given the national stage.

Update [2009-11-18 20:49:22 by Jerome Armstrong]: yea, Tom Watson spells it out.

With 2010 coming soon, we'll be rolling in the election year edition of deficit politics. I wouldn't be shocked to see Obama pull out the charts...

The national debt hit 12 trillion this week, which is about equal to the financial bailout amount. Eight months ago, it hit 11 trillion, and the projection is that it hits 14 trillion next year. This brings up a vote-- one that I expect will become much more political than it has been in the past.

Brad DeLong has some thoughts: Hopefully, he'll have learned from the TARP mistakes and let the failures fail, and let the wealthly, instead of the middle-class, take a loss. The other politcal posturing that's going to be done is over Bush's tax-cuts, which expire in 2010. Democrats have rightly campaigned on them to not be extended, and Republicans will jam it down the newwire that Obama is raising taxes. So, how long before some Democrat in the Senate says we ought to extend them?

Economic tinder for the '10 election.

The progressive netroots movement has always been about the populism of getting people involved with political activism. "The Rise of People-Powered Politics" was part of the subtitle of Crashing The Gate; the election wave of victories in '06 Moveon.org capped the slogan "People Powered Politics" atop the historic wave election for Democrats. However, over the past couple of months, I'm becoming convinced that the perception, to put it simply, is that the Democrats have become the party of the bankers.

The story goes that Obama, when he decided to let the Goldman Sachs/Wall St alumni run his Treasury, paid off a campaign debt to his biggest financial backers. But it wasn't just a tip of the hat, as it led to Obama & the Democrats becoming the establishment face of TARP (with that second round of bank bailout money), which is arguably the biggest miscalculation of his Presidency, and for Democrats this cycle. It might take failure to pass healthcare reform, or a reneging of his promise to pull out of Iraq in 18 months, to top that bank bailout mistake. To Big To Fail has become The Big Fail. There is even talk now that some of the TARP money will be used to paydown the deficit. That's smart because people are worried about the deficit over boosting the economy by a 2:1 margin according to recent Peter Hart polling. But you have to wonder if the damage has already been done:

The Republicans are jumping at the frame:
That's Craig Shirley, Elites overlook power of populists, but you have to go back to read what he wrote in April of 2006, How the GOP Lost Its Way, because he's seen this coming for a while now in the Republicans. The mix of populism with movement conservatism to create the populist conservative moment is underway. All for it is Matthew Continetti, A case for the new populism. All against it is Patrick N. Allitt, Instead of going rogue, Instead of going rogue, Republicans should cultivate leadership in ideas and solutions; and then there's Christopher Hitchens, best known for his neocon atheism, who believes that if the likes of Palin represents populism, the opposition should go all in with embracing elitism, Base Appeal (what I want to know is why it takes Democrats a couple of decades to remake the party while it only takes Republicans a couple of years).

That Democrats this year lost the opportunity for a "Barack Obama, FDR and the Hundred Days" moment is pretty clear in hindsight. To recover the momentum, we have to roll up a package of issues, vote them up or down, and if they don't pass, run on them in '10. Right now, Democrats are so afraid of failing that nothing is getting done. Yea, there's a whole progressive agenda that's been left by the wayside so far, but if Democrats don't halt this move toward becoming the party that holds the bid for JP Morgan right now, even worse will happen.

I just got my copy of "Censored 2010: The top 25 stories of 2008-09" and you know what the first one is? Its "US Congress Sells Out to Wall Street" and lays it at the feet of Democrats. Since the start of 2009, Wall Street has donated more than any other sector to DC politicians, and "58% of that has gone to Democrats, marking a change, perhaps, in political strategy. Not since the 1990 election cycle have finance, insurance, and real estate companies given more than 52% of its overall donations to Democrats, and from 1991 to 2006, finance gave the majority of its money to Republicans."

That's change, for the wrong people. Yes, this is reflective of a political strategy furthered by D politicians such as Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel. Basically, their thinking goes, since the Republicans have relied upon lobbyist, corporate, and financial funding to maintain an advantage over the past decades, undercut that, and D's will gain the financial advantage over R's.

It reminds me of the sort of thinking that went along with Bush and the Republicans willingly signing McCain-Fiengold CFR into law; and many establishment Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, thought the Democrats were committing funding suicide. I wrote just the opposite was happening-- that it would lead to the Democrats being funded by the grassroots. And that happened, no doubt surprising the Republicans that they were suddenly being outspent a few cycles later.

The upside of this topsy-turvy state of funding turmoil is that funding of Democratic institutions by populist progressives has come to a standstill, funding of conservative populists is going to rocket. Funding of Democrats by the big banks is at record levels, and funding of Republicans by those same banks is on the wane. Alongside the perception that Democrats can't pass meaningful legislation and that Obama is too passive in pushing for the promises on which he campaigned, it does add up to an electoral disaster-in-waiting in '10.

Rahm Emanual is reading the '09 tea-leaves, and now says that "reducing America’s long- term federal budget deficits is now is foremost on his mind and the mind of the economic team". This midnight conversion of Hoover/McCain thought can't be taken seriously.

Then there's the first line of Politico today: "BREAKING I: Obama administration to launch big financial fraud crackdown. A senior administration official tells POLITICO: "We will be announcing a sustained, multilevel attack on financial fraud." Sounds like another window dressing initiative.

There's does seem to be the possibility for movement/moment right now for take down of one of the architects of this disaster, Timothy Geithner.

Geithner has been Singled Out In TARP Watchdog Neil Barofsky's Scathing Report On AIG Bailout. He's game for being the scapegoat.

Update [2009-11-17 14:40:52 by Jerome Armstrong]:A bit more on this last point from Joe Costello:

To quote the Epicurean Dealmaker: Tim Geithner and the Federal Reserve got royally played. And you and I, my friends, paid dearly for the privilege.

The dollar hit a new low today against other currencies. If you google Obama's deficit plan, you'll pull up a Page Not Found*.

I've been mulling over and writing something about populism and the political turmoil that's underway as the GOP remakes itself, and Democrats struggle with having the power.

All this political reshuffling has led me to go back to the history books to re-read the mid 1890's to early 1900's, which, with its social conservative populism and economic turmoil, have similarities to glean over; President Grover Cleveland, then the battles between William McKinley vs William Jennings Bryan, and Teddy Roosevelt. That's a fascinating period, when the financial standards were moving from gold & silver to greenbacks. Amidst a financial collapse and recovery, a new economic environment emerged. Both parties became radically transformed as the nation moved from an agrarian to a industrial based economy. The Republicans transitioned from the party of Lincoln and the Civil War victors of justice to being the party of business. The progressives existed within the Republican party still, but the Democrats became less southern and more populist-based. I love reading about that era and its political upheavals. Its also distant enough that it gets away from the whole current era's Red-Blue divide, because you could find progressive arguments for both sides.  

Consider another angle of possible similarity, that as we move toward a globalist economic system, its possible that the current fiscal attempt to rescue the economy by inducing inflation through deficit-ballooning is setting the stage for a move away from the dollar to a new global currency. Obama is probably ideally positioned for leading such a move, and I have little doubt that the populist conservatives would lead the charge in support of the dollar. You could make the progressive arguement that its much better for us to be led down that path by the likes of the Democrats doing the bidding of the banks under Obama, than it would be under BushCo. Although, one could counter-argue that Bush I & II made the corporate New World Order possible; Clinton, Obama and the Democrats just get to follow-through.

Update [2009-11-16 19:51:12 by Jerome Armstrong]: Consider if these are related?