Well, originally, the goal was to abolish capitalism. But if you're 400 people sitting around in a park there's only so much you can do, and getting the attention of the world is a significant thing. But to expect "Occupy" to do something is a little disingenuous. Occupy is anyone who supports the movement.

There is the problem of nebulous discontent. The problem is everything is fucked up, and no single solution is big enough. But the idea the anarchists behind the original OWS had was to overthrow capitalism and replace it with various flavors of anarchism (being anarchists and all). As for what does an anarchist society look like, and how do we get there from here? I'm not entirely sure, I mean if I were, I would first have to be prescient, and I would be telling everyone who would listen about the magic formula.

You could probably get a list of demands together. But they would be all over the place, and none of them would really be enough to confront the real problems presented by the 21st century state-capitalist machinations, peak oil and climate change..

No state by state analysis for me, there are only two possible outcomes as far as I can tell. 1) The election follows current polling trends relatively closely and Obama wins by a decisive (though not exactly large) margin. Or 2) the Republicans can disenfranchise groups likely to vote Democrat through voter ID laws, ballot shortages, or what-have-you, and enough Republicans are energized and able to get to the polls that Romney wins by a small margin. The aftermath of which drags on for weeks or months in the courts until the establishment decides it's time to get past the petty partisanship and support our new president Romney.

I'm involved in Occupy Anchorage and we're trying to get an occupation going. We in Alaska will have to deal with colder temperatures quicker and so we're trying to figure out how to stay warm. We are working on a bicycle powered generator and we're probably going to need portable heaters. Bivy sacks and warm sleeping bags are an option.

Going back to your original comment, what I was trying to say was that the rich/poor divide isn't nearly as arbitrary as racial/religious divides. The rich/poor divide is increasingly important to be conscious of, and it's perhaps even more important to be conscious of the stratification that keeps people poor, and all the ways that robs a large chuck of humanity of its potential, which is what the piece is really about.

All that said, although the wealthy may not actually be intentionally malicious towards the poor, they are still not absolved of moral responsibility for their actions by saying that simply "anyone would do the same" or that they're just "playing the game" and "didn't write the rules". The unfortunate fact is that in a world with finite resources we really can't satisfy unlimited desire to posses material goods, and at a certain point the more one possesses the less is available for those in need.