[...]
>
> Conversely, if adding an economic burden is not seen as insult and
> disrespect but a "natural" turn in the way capitalist economy operates,
> they are unlikely to rebel at all. Or perhaps if they see that extra
> burden as an insult and disrespect by someone else than the party
> currently in power - say - by foreigners, the Chinese where "our" jons are
> supposed to go, the Mexican immigrants supposedly taking "our" jobs away,
> transnational companies concerned only about their bottom line, etc. -
> that will only boosts their patriotism as a way of restoring their
> "dignity" as a nation, and support a candidate who is the most jingoistic.
> That seems to be consident with the WP story. (BTW, it worked extremely
> well for the Nazis in Weimar Germany.)
>
> So if you add those two factors together: middle Amerika women identifying
> with the hockey-mom-Palin, and bitter yokels feeling "insulted" by
> foreigners taking "their" jobs away - you will have enough people drawn to
> the MacCain camp to obtain the 50% + 1 vote majority.
>
> Again, I sincerely hope it will not happen, but I also have enough
> understanding of human behavior to be really really concerned about the
> outcome of the November electon.
===============================================
But how would your theory square with the Democrats increasing their
majority in Congress - possibly by a very significant margin - because of
increased economic concerns and hardship?
It still seems to me that race is the primary reason why Obama is lagging the reported movement towards the Democrats at the Congressional level.