It would have seemed impossible a year ago, with the Tea Party and all, that there would be a massive grassroots protest movement in America from what amounts to Obama’s left, but here it is. But, is it starting too late in the cycle (the TPers started in 2009) to have any effect, as a third-party movement or an intraparty insurgency or anything else, on the 2012 elections?
“Massive”? Seriously?
Tell me, how many people have to demonstrate for it to be “massive” in your universe? 300? 1000?
Not much since the OWS protests are born in part out of disappointment with the democratic party. I’m sure a lot of the OWS protesters and supporters were Obama and dem supporters in 2008 who are upset because they feel that the plutocrats were given a soft touch. And if the 2008-2010 congress taught us anything it is that even with a 60 seat supermajority in the senate, the most conservative democratic senator can stop all legislation unless it is watered down to meet his beliefs. So using politics to address plutocracy is a waste of time by and large. One party is a wholly owned branch of plutocracy and the other is in cahoots.
I don’t know if they will use primaries the way the tea party did to make its influence known, I assume there is more disillusionment with politics in the OWS movement than the tea party. It would be comparable to a tea party rising up when Bush and the GOP still controlled the country because they were disappointed in the GOP.
So the influence on politics will be marginal.
There are demonstrations in over 900 cities. There are a lot of people protesting the political/financial debacle that has harmed the country and the world so badly. Sorry massive is such a difficult concept for you to understand.
LOL. Give me a number. So far every picture I have seen of such a gathering showed rather thin attendance.
You are watching on Fox?
15,000 (this is just New York we’re talking about, and not the satellite protests in different cities) is “thin” to you?
We can quibble about the numbers, and what quantifies as “massive”, but frankly I’m not interested in that. What I do find very interesting is a recent poll showing 54 percent of Americans have a favorable impression of the protest.
I am sure a big majority of people, if asked whether they want a free handout, will say yes. Does that mean free handouts should be given?
To answer the OP - no effect until the “protesters” will get into political arena. Sponsor a half dozen federal election Dem primary candidates that defeat some incumbent “blue dog” Dems, and people will start taking you half way seriously. Until then - lots of hot air and amusing pictures of new age idiots taking instruction from old time hippies, and not much else.
Wow, old time hippies. Hot air, New age idiots
You sure are a reasonable person to discuss it aren’t you? I suppose you will be annoyed when you are ignored. But you will be.
Knock yourself out.
I see more photographers and police in the pictures than protesters. Certainly WAY less than “15,000”. Maybe a few hundred.
As for “new age idiots” - yes.
“Columbia University students Zoe Ridolfi-Starr, left, and Quitze Valenzuela-Stookey”
ROTFLMAO.
I’m going to guess by your posting style that you’re conservative. You and I are probably never going to see eye to eye on government programs to assist the poor. So let’s set that aside.
But what we should come to a consensus on is that we don’t need any government handouts to the rich. How about we work together on crafting legislation that will prevent another crisis (and inevitable "bailout) from occurring again?
We can. But I don’t think we can come to a consensus on what constitutes a “government handout”. I don’t consider the government grabbing a little less money from you than it otherwise would a “handout”. You probably do.
As for “bailouts” - no, they should not have occurred. How to prevent it? Easy - don’t re-elect the people that voted for them.
I think you need to understand something. Unless there’s a fundamental change in how our political process is operating, there will be another crisis. Because there’s no effective regulation to stop it from happening again. And when (not if, when) there is another crisis, there will be another bailout whether you or I like it or not. Because our government is in the pockets of the people who started the crisis. The sooner you, the Republican, Democratic, and Tea Parties can wake up to this simple fact, the sooner we can make some much needed progress.
Ah, now we’re getting somewhere. Maybe you can now get to the next step - if only there was some overriding, supreme law that would limit the federal government’s powers only to certain specific functions, and not to anything else…
To get around the debate over what is or isn’t ‘massive’, I’d say that the Occupy Wall Street protests are a bit to nebulous to constitute a cohesive party or philosophy, so I doubt there are going to have a major impact on the elections one way or the other. People are frustrated, angry and scared. Basically the same thing that happens whenever there is a large economic downturn. The election will hinge on whether people blame the Democrats or the Republics for the nations woes (or, I should say, blame more, since I think the anger is pretty general right now, and not directed solely at either party, but, rightfully, at both). But then, it would have hinged on that no matter if the Occupy stuff was happening or not.
Personally, I think the whole Occupy thing is rather silly, and so nebulous and diverse in what, if anything they actually want or are angry with that it would be a joke, if so many Americans (and non-Americans, since this has gone viral all around the world now…or maybe it went viral there and just came here) weren’t so scared, angry and frustrated over how bad things are. If I had to guess, I’d say that the left will benefit more than the right, since fear of the Big Bad Business Boogieman is more their style, while the right plays on the Fears of Freakin’ Foggy Ferriners and The Terrors of Taliban Terrorists (Technically Transitory and Thematically Terrifying Theocrats) and the like.
-XT
Well, I’m not counting just New York.
There is, but I’m not surprised you’re not familiar with it-- Most conservatives aren’t. I’m not sure what that has to do with the bailouts, though.
And xtisme, the Occupy movement is nebulous now. Maybe a year from now it’ll have firmed up, though. Or maybe it won’t; it’s hard to tell yet. But if it does firm up, it certainly could have a significant effect on the elections.
Sure, it might become more focused in the future…or it might peter out. It’s hard to predict at this point. My WAG TODAY is that it won’t have much bearing on the election, since if it happened or didn’t happen, people would still be angry, frustrated and scared, and all those things would impact the election in exactly the same way. Like I said, it’s all going to depend on who the public’s fury comes down on…Dem or Pub. It’s not like the Occupy Party is going to run their own person and challenge both parties for supremacy or anything…or to use a less factious example and take my tongue out of my cheek, it’s not like this will cause the Dems to nominate some radical left winger to take Obama’s place as Democratic Party candidate. It might get them (either the Dems or Pubs) to pay lip service to whatever concepts, demands or whatever comes out of that more focused future platform, but I doubt it will fundamentally change anything.
-XT
Very, very, very little. I don’t even think the Occupy Wall Street people know what it is they’re protesting.