Lately I've seen several posts and multitudes of comments suggesting that the Republicans will take over the presidency in 2012. Or the Democrats will keep the presidency in 2012. Or certain specific Republicans, e.g., Sarah Palin, will be the next president (obviously the next Democratic president is universally proposed as Barack Obama).
All of these predictions are absolutely meaningless. At best they are the result of wishful ignorance on the part of the commenter. At worst they are delusional and suggest a lack of analytical credibility.
For example, take this comment:
"The next President to be elected will be a Republican and will have to dig our country out of this mess Obama/Democrats are getting us into."
This is said totally and absolutely based on the commenter's biased speculation. It has no basis at all in reality. It's mere puffery. Worse, it's offered as if it were 1) fact, and/or 2) based on fact. It isn't.
Similarly, another comment said:
"The next president will be Obama again. Then another dem ~~~then another dem."
Again, based solely on the commenter's personal biases. (Though at least in this case there is the last election, positive poll numbers, and the historical advantage of the incumbent to provide circumstantial evidence supporting that bias.) But a lot of things can happen between now and then.
Another commenter suggested:
"Sarah Palin is the future of the GOP, and given her skills and talents, she could possibly be the first female president AND cause the first black president to be limited to one term."
This is, along with the rest of the post/comments by this particular person, goes beyond speculation and bias. It ignores all the evidence that Palin is, in fact, someone who appeals to a narrow subset of the Republican party, which suggests she would have a hard time getting the Republican nomination. It also suggests her chances of winning the presidential election are virtually non-existent. Can that change? Of course. But saying it now requires ignoring the current state of play.
In any case, this is June 2009. The next presidential election is November 2012. Any prediction for any undeclared candidate or even any party is meaningless and based entirely on the commenter's bias.
And people willing to make predictions 3 years ahead of an election based on these biases would suggest that they are not particularly good sources of information.
The truth is that there is no way to determine how things will pan out in the next three years. The previous administration was widely seen as a failure (i.e., by the majority of Americans, including a substantial minority of the same party). That administration began with a budget surplus and ended with two ongoing wars, a financial meltdown that started in the US and spread worldwide, and severely depressed approval numbers (not to mention very high disapproval numbers). This all led to substantial wins by the opposing party in the 2006 and 2008 elections. The new and current administration has taken very large steps in an effort to rectify the problems left over from the previous administration. These large steps have included not only additional spending to stimulate the failing economy, but also significant changes in direction on many issues. Furthermore, the administration is trying to steer us into the future that will be very different from the past.
So, how will this affect the next presidential election? The answer is, of course, who knows?
If the very large steps being taken start panning out as the administration intends, and the majority of the people feel that the steps are part of the solution and we're going in the right direction, then the current administration will be well positioned for reelection in 2012. If on the other hand these steps do not accomplish their goals, or at the very least are not perceived to be doing so by the time campaigning for 2012 picks up, then it could mean an easy takeover for the Republicans. There is just no way to know at this point. And anyone who says they do know is just blowing wind.
But let's take a look at a related comment someone posted:
"The next election will bring us more House and Senate Republicans to stop the insane spending and hopefully reverse some of the harmful effects started by this President."
Again, the commenter is basing this entirely on their personal biases and has done absolutely no analysis to come to this conclusion. It also ignores the fact that the Republicans are historically even bigger spenders, though obviously on different priorities than the Democrats. Ignoring reality and basing on nothing but biases makes this worthless as commentary.
But let's do some quick analysis based on the information that we do have available. For example, one can easily demonstrate that the gerrymandering of House districts over the decades significantly benefits the incumbent (even beyond the other advantages of the incumbent such as name recognition, pork projects, and franking privileges). So most districts tend to stay "safe" Republican or Democratic (at least until the next redistricting). Districts that do tend to be more moderate have leaned toward the Democrats in the two most recent elections, which is a large part of the reason the Democrats currently hold a majority in the House. To make a long story short, it is likely that Republicans will recapture some of those districts in 2010, if for no other reason than the populace tends not to like one party to get too much power. In the Senate, the remaining Republicans are almost exclusively from solid red states (except for the two Maine Senators, since Maine tends to be more moderate anyway). Which means the Republicans will probably not lose any more Senate seats in 2010. They even have a chance to pick up one based on local issues rather than any particular ideology.
So while the statement quoted above was based solely on the uninformed biases of the commenter, the end result might actually be correct. But then, calling a coin flip in the air will also be right sometimes even though there is no informed basis for picking either heads or tails.
Obviously my mini-analysis above is also somewhat speculative. While it is based on general trends and historical districting, House seats tend to be more personalized to the candidate. So they are inherently more difficult to predict. And predicting them when most of the candidates haven't even been identified is meaningless. Senate seats are easier to predict, but again the economic and political conditions as the election nears are important, so there is no way to predict at this point. So, we'll see what happens next year.
Before that, however, there are two Governor's races, in New Jersey in Virginia. Both are currently held by Democrats, and both can conceivably be won by Republicans this November. When we get close enough for any predictions to be meaningful I'll take a shot at predicting the result. I'll even take a shot at predicting how the results will be interpreted by both parties (this is actually the easy part, since we can pretty much already work out the reactions to each scenario).
The take away point of this post is to encourage people not to confuse their personal biases for objective analysis. We should all strive to base our opinions on reality, not surreality or fantasy.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 166
Until election day all suppositions are mere puffery. My opinion is that the next presidential election will be a real humdinger. The division in this country has been getting wider and deeper. If I were to base my opinion on gather alone, however, I'd be concerned that our states wouldn't even be united by then. Fortunately, I try to have a broader view, and I remain positive.
This is an excellent article very much based in the reality of the situation. Thanks.
I think we'll have a pretty good idea well before election day. But certainly right now any predictions have no basis in reality.
As for Gather, the site is self-selecting in that generally only those with strong views either way will post and comment, so it isn't necessarily a reflection of the real world. Still, it does show that there are many people who base their decisions on completely erroneous, and often illogical, information.
"Sarah Palin is the future of the GOP, and given her skills and talents, she could possibly be the first female president AND cause the first black president to be limited to one term."
Skills and talents??? Can someone explain?
Well, the skills and talents provided by that particular poster was that "she's smart, good looking, and has a deadly sense of humor." Also apparently that she is "pro life," "against homosexual marriages," "questions global warming," and "owns a gun."
The poster seemed not to see the irony in using sexist comments to support his preferred "future of the GOP." The other attributes are pretty much in agreement with all the other likely Republican candidates, so they certainly wouldn't set her off as anyone special. The poster provided no further suggestions as to what he thought any actual governing "skills and talents." It would seem that her ability to effectively manage the duties of Governor of Alaska would have been an obvious source of examples, but the poster made no mention of that in either the post or comments. In fact, the poster pretty much just used insulting language and excess profanity. That's a sure sign of low self-esteem and a fragile ego, and certainly not of someone whose analytical capacity should be considered to even exist.
Mustn't forget Palin's extensive foreign policy experience. She's probably the only potential candidate who sits in her back yard and gazes across to Russia. She's clearly developed a unique and comprehensive understanding of Russian culture and policies as they relate to the world geopolitical structure by observing from her deck chair, while munching Cheese Doodles and slurping MooseJaw Micro-Brew.
I say that she has already proven herself not to be capable of leading the nation.
But it would be heaven to have her win her party's nomination and run!
I'll disagree with myself just enough to warn against underestimating Palin's political skills. She has already been cramming to learn the catch phrases and key names and places to allow her to sound like she understands. She will not appear as clueless as she did last year. She also will be smart enough to stick to pre-scripted situations and memorized answers as much as possible to avoid her rambling, incoherent extemporaneous style.
That said, her strength is with a narrow subset of the party, which is not a good omen for winning. Also, keep in mind that if she runs she will have to face her fellow Republicans in the primaries, and they will go after her ruthlessly. They won't let anyone forget 2008, and if she survives the primaries, the Democrats won't let anyone forget either.
But she will still be incoherent! and at heart a no nothing.
And the point is? Does anyone really attach credibility to any of these speculations? It seems to me that you've gone to a lot of trouble to state the obvious. The thing about wild predictions is that somebody will be right! So it is with the economy. Watch or read any business source and you'll hear predictions from one extreme to another with lots in between. Somebody is going to turn out to be correct--probably more by chance than savvy or clairvoyance.
"Does anyone really attach credibility to any of these speculations?"
Unfortunately, it seems they do. So many people are certain of the future, despite an apparent lack of understanding of the past.
"It seems to me that you've gone to a lot of trouble to state the obvious."
Perhaps so. But then it appears it's no so obvious to everyone, based on what we see every day here on Gather, in the media, and on the blogosphere.
"The thing about wild predictions is that somebody will be right"
Again, true. Though being accidentally right is no more meaningful than being wrong when there is no real attempt to analyze reality.
Abraham Lincoln once said:
"I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false, is guilty of falsehood;and the accidental truth of the assertion, does not justify or excuse him."
No argument from me, David, and "being accidentally right is no more meaningful than being wrong when there is no real attempt to analyze reality" was my point exactly. Regardless, the media make the accidentally right person out to be some sort of sage. Mutual funds warn, "past performance is no guarantee of future...." but many seem to ignore that when it comes to political and economic predictors.
Agreed, John. We need to look at multiple factors, including the changing conditions.
That Lincoln quote is often a humbling one.
"there are many people who base their decisions on completely erroneous, and often illogical, information."
And David, this is how every president for the past 100 years has been elected. Very, very few people base their election choice on the realities of their needs. If they did, Republicans and Democrats wouldn't win a single vote.
2012 ? isn't the world ending in 2012? or is that a movie?
No, the world is scheduled to end, right after the Superbowl.
While I do believe Obama's lengthy campaign set a new standard for the campaigning calendar, I think 41 months from the election is a bit of stretch for declaring our next candidates... let alone suggesting who will actually get elected! Let's face it... 41 months before the last election, who even knew Obama!?
Exactly. Everyone assumed it would be Hillary Clinton vs Rudy Giuliani. Oops.
Yeah, at this point in Shrub's last term, I was betting on Hillary. At this point in his first term, I was sure he wouldn't have a second. Fortunately, I never put money on political outcomes (well, in a betting sense, anyway).
The 2008 election cycle was an aberration. Because the President was term-limited and his VP wasn't running, the field was wide-open. People had to get in quick to secure as many donors and followers as possible (I see you lurking over there, Giuliani and Thompson)!
Agreed, James. This was the first election in a while that the incumbent president or vice-president wasn't on the ticket. And I also agree it had a lot to do with snatching up the donor pool.
2012 will see the incumbent president for the Democratic party and some of the same faces from 2008 (Romney, for example; perhaps Palin; maybe even Gingrich) for the Republicans. Rommey would have the best chance in the general election, especially if the economy is still weak. But the other Republican candidates for the nomination will gang up on him and attack him mercilessly. Gingrich and Palin will get a lot of press but it would be unusual to see them do well - the Republican party has a long history of giving you one shot and tossing you in the dust bin (McCain was the obvious exception). Jindal seems to have smartened up and is backing away from 2012 to think about 2016. But in the end, it might be someone that hasn't been getting much attention on the national stage. In fact, that would probably give the Republicans their best shot.
You actually felt the need to write an entire post on this? Really?
Anyone with half a brain is aware of the points you made, at least those of us who might posess said half the needed gray matter. I'm just suprised you felt it necessary to post an entire editorial about it.
I also don't think Sara Palin will be the next GOP candidate. I think she makes most Old Party Republicans cringe in pain when they hear her name.
"You actually felt the need to write an entire post on this? Really?"
Yes
"Anyone with half a brain is aware of the points you made, at least those of us who might posess said half the needed gray matter."
I agree, and yet it seems not everyone on Gather is as aware as needed. Whether these people meet your criteria of having half a brain I cannot say. I see many otherwise seemingly intelligent people to whom these points appear not to be so obvious.
" I'm just suprised you felt it necessary to post an entire editorial about it."
I'm surprised I found it necessary as well. And yet, it did seem that it was, in fact, necessary.
David, that is an incredibly gracious reply to the above rather abrasive comment. Rare, and greatly appreciated, for the dignity and willingness to overlook the tone. Such a response keeps the conversation going rather than letting it fall into diatribe. Thank you.
Stacey, you are out of line.
I'm out of line? For what? Speaking my mind? Really? (rolls eyes) At least I don't just hand out poor ratings and not bother to post a comment at all. As a matter of fact I don't rate at all unless I'm really personally insulted or amazed. An opinion is not wrong, it simply differs. Deal.
Stacey - I agree that you have right to speak your mind. And no offense was taken on my part of your comments. In fact, as I noted in my earlier reply, I agree that it would seem I was stating the obvious, though clearly it seemed necessary. Even some of the comments on this thread demonstrate that the post was necessary (though I must admit most of the comments are very thoughtful).
Happy to have you come around any time. Best regards.
Maybe it's time for a viable independent party to emerge and surprise all of us.
What I would like to see is the republican party dissolve with moderate republicans moving into the democrat party thus further reducing conservative influence in American politics. With republicans gone from scene and democrats moving right there would be an opportunity for major progressive party on the left.
I'm not sure we're ready for a third party. Where would they position themselves? The Republicans and Democrats define themselves as the right and left extremes. A viable third party would presumably be in the middle (after all, we have lots of "third" parties, but they usually line up outside the extremes).
Assuming third party candidates would have to position themselves as the rational middle, isn't that pretty much what Obama did in this past election?
What good is a free democracy if we have no choice?
Don't we have a choice? We had 8 Republican candidates, 10 Democratic candidates, and at least 4 other named candidates. The two major parties whittled their choices down to one nominee each, so most ballots had at 6 or more choices for president in 2008.
Well, the fact that the Dems and Reps have kept down any third party by making rules and guidelines which are extremely hard to meet, should be considered.
There are some good Third Parties out there which would bring real insight to a conversation and to an election. However, having them side by side with the "chosen" ones would expose them for what they are - frauds.
And, if they did allow them in debates, for awhile, the media would marginalize them as they do not follow the "agenda". People would listen to the media, instead of the candidate and researching their backgrounds, voting records, etc. - thus they are flushed out of the news, with all the negatives comments they can muster. And, the media, with their cut and paste, and re-runs, would finish the job.
Agreed that the two major parties prefer it that way and have instituted many rules that make it difficult for third parties to get any traction.
I don't agree that the media marginalize third party candidates because they don't follow the chosen "agenda." Due to the nature of how the two major parties have divided the country into diametrically opposed caricatures, third party candidates tend to already have marginalized positions. They tend to be "one-issue" candidates and show no understanding or inclination to understand the full range of issues necessary to effectively govern this country.
I disagree, David, Ron Paul Republican (aka Libertarian) has vast knowledge and experience and education in all the issues which effect this country. Nobody listened or understood. He was not part of the reality pushed upon the American people for generations. They've worked hard schooling the uneducated in that direction.
When he says something which doesn't make sense to me, I do my own research in order to understand. He is one of the most intelligent and honest people in govt. today. He's predicted the financial collapse - years ago when we could have corrected the course. Now we have a 9/11 - Patriot Act - loss of freedom "blowback?" 9/11 financial attack, 9/11 of health freedom. What is left?
We no longer have two major parties - only on paper and in the hearts and minds of an indifferent public. They vote the same. That's why we should push for a good "third party" or in my way of thinking, a true second party.
We have NO checks and balances. McCain on TV this am praising Obama, same as Hitlery did once the Sec of Defense position was negotiated.
We must be the change we want to see, starting at local and state levels, and get the Fed govt out of our lives/states. Get our children a real education by getting them out of the public schools OR re-schooling when they get home, with a dose of reality.
I have no problem with there being a viable third party. I opt for someone who thinks, who considers more than one side, and who is capable of communicating.
And education doesn't get nearly as much attention as it needs. Clearly that is a problem.
You'll know who the next president is, the same way we knew who this one would be.
Other's choose the next dictator and then the media pushes them and their fake agenda. It doesn't matter if Rep or Dem. - same ol' same ol'...
About a hundred years ago the communists were open about wanting to take over one or both political parties. They succeeded with the Democrat party, and have been highly successful in neutralizing the Republican party by splitting it internally.
Apparently "others" couldn't decide this past time, because they "chose" Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, then "chose" Obama and McCain. All four would probably be considered more centrist.
As for the communists splitting the Democratic party and neutralizing the Republican party by splitting it internally [isn't that the same thing?], it would seem that the communists can't decide either because 5 of the last 7 presidents have been Republicans.
And neither party's platform (especially the Republicans) seems consistent with the communist ideology.
Well, the tests showed Obama was more likable, and McCain had no chance (it was giving him his 15 min. of fame) for history's sake.
David - Rep or Dem - none of them follow any "ideology". Look at the voting record. They must present some fake differences so we "think" we have a choice.
Actually, I've decided we've been a fascist state for decades. The problem is we never had a good definition of fascism.
A friend of mine, who has studied history and other forms of govt. recommended checking out this book, Liberal Fascism by Jonah
Goldberg.
The introduction has a nice explanation of how he defines
fascism and why it's hard to define. Part of the problem is that many
people don't want it defined so it can be used as a generic label for
"I disagree with that so I'll call if fascist". Stalin started doing
that in earnest.
So far the book has been a great read. It goes through history of
fascism in the West. I didn't put two and two together before and
never really thought about how the Western fascist state matured in
the United States first, and then moved into Europe.
This validates my belief that the U.S. has been a fascist state for
decades, but I've been tenuous in that belief because I could never
nail down the word "fascism" very well.
"Well, the tests showed Obama was more likable, and McCain had no chance (it was giving him his 15 min. of fame) for history's sake."
Which tests were those?
"Actually, I've decided we've been a fascist state for decades."
Fascism?
"I didn't put two and two together before and never really thought about how the Western fascist state matured in the United States first, and then moved into Europe."
I'm sure most people would not have put this two and two together as you have.
"This validates my belief that the U.S. has been a fascist state for decades, but I've been tenuous in that belief because I could never
nail down the word "fascism" very well."
The definition of "fascism" does seem to be a problem.
Linda, am adding Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg to my wishlist of books to read. Thanks.
David and Linda, I've heard bits of this thought process and seeing in writing helps clarify what the others were getting at.
David, the "tests" was probably not the right word. "feelers" "pulse" after all, they want to move forward with someone whom they can control and who can pull it off. Obama was discovered and then groomed. His speech and popularity in Germany showed he had the ability to smooze internationally. The obvious fixing of the NH primary (electronic votes/hacked) proved Clinton was in trouble anyhow.
When talking about Iran and how Obama should or should not interfere, they said, "Obama is the most popular man in the world". When "Obama and the Case of the Pesky Fly "(coming soon to your local theaters), are reported adnausiam, you know the real news is buried. I'm just wondering why we haven't heard which WH bathroom, the first African(?) American president honored with his first crap and which bedroom…
Fascism is solely a right-wing phenomenon. By its very definition, state corporatism, fascism can't arise on the left. Socialism and Communism can, yes, but not fascism.
Linda
When in high school in the 60s I took a class then called civics. There is a scale accepted by political theorists laying out the left to right groupings of movements, as follows:left to right of course:
communism-socialism-liberalism-centrist-conservative-reactionary-fascist
To this you might now add libertarianism. Ron Paul? I consider this to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative although often for different reasons than either the dems or repubs
Thanks Jim for the continuum. Can socialism, communism and fascism all co-exist? I've heard Obama being labeled as all three, sometimes by the same person in the same sentences.
Marilyn - Who are "they?" And are "they" the same "they" that was behind the Bush administration? It would seem unlikely that the two would have the same advisors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sstDwKTCpM
An American Form of Government
An explanation of the various forms of government, and why America is not a democracy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE
Fascinating video. But it seems to support the fact that the US government, not some "secret government," was responsible for all of the actions mentioned. Shouldn't the US government be taking responsibility for its actions? Isn't it just a little too convenient to say some "secret" government is responsible for everything? And isn't this why we now have tighter controls on the power of the president? And on the CIA (which in all examples given was authorized by the administration)? Isn't this an example of Congress not doing its job in the past with regard to oversight?
Your second video is very well put together and a good educational source for reminding people what form of government we have. We could quibble with some of their definitions, but the details aren't that relevant. Why? Because it doesn't really matter that many (most?) Americans don't know the definitions. It's not the only thing about our system of government that many people don't understand. In truth, people just want the government to do what's right, and the definition of the form of government as defined by the founders isn't relevant to them. (Obviously it is relevant in practice, but not really to the public) Everyone knows that the country is based on the rule of law, and that the majority cannot break the law any more than the minority. No one is suggesting that breaking the law is okay.
Well, David, it's secret if we don't know about it. That's just word-smithing.
Yes to taking responsibility
Not convenient, just the way it is
Tighter controls? since when? Executive Orders rule...
Bin Laden (when alive) was CIA
Yes, Congress is NOT doing it's job and hasn't for more years than I've been alive. They no longer represent We The People. Look at how they vote.
They think the Americans are too dumb (and they could be right) to understand. The public remains indifferent and the press is seduced or distracted.
"In truth, people just want the government to do what's right"
Would that be morally, ethically, or according to the majority?
And, who decides what is right. I hate aborting the innocent and others could care less. What about personal responsibility.
Just look at the posters here on Gather. Many call me names and others want me to go away while others send me "friends" requests on a regular basis. Who decides?
But we do know about it. The Moyers video is dated 1987. He interviewed CIA operatives.
I don't know if "they" think Americans are too dumb or just too busy to worry about every rumor they hear about. With the internet, blogs, conspiracy web sites, and unrestrained postings by anyone and everyone, I would imaging that today it's even harder to filter the real information from that being put out there by the paranoid.
Who decides what is right? On some things it is the majority, though it is less about what is right and more about what is preference. We, the public, make matters worse by not becoming informed or thinking rationally. Thus we are both victims of, and enablers of, partisan pandering.
Some issues there is no right. People make their own choices. Which is why we have laws. As you noted, we are a Republic, which is a nation of laws.
"Just look at the posters here on Gather. Many call me names and others want me to go away while others send me "friends" requests on a regular basis. Who decides?"
It would seem obvious that you decide who you choose to be friends with on Gather and elsewhere. Or more accurately, it is a mutual choice as both parties must agree to accept friendship status on Gather. The same is true in the real world. But "making friends" and passing laws are not congruent activities. Laws are about defining the rights or restrictions for society as a whole. Making friends is about your personal choice.
At the end of the day, one who speaks the Truth may inspire violence against livers of lies just as one who speaks lies may inspire violence against the tellers of Truth. But this isn’t the fault of the Truth; it simply means that society needs more of it...
My point about friends and postings on Gather was about differences - period. I choose to be friends with like-mined people, as do others.
You and I knock heads, but in the end, we want the best for all Americans and the country - When we trample on The Constitution, and continue to elect corrupt leaders because of the media and the money thrown at campaigns, there can be no winners other than those who continue to ignore the rule of law.
I support a Republic. I support The Constitution. I support Free Capitalism (the likes of which are practically non-existent, because people often misuse that word and definition.) Are any of the three left? Could this be WHY our country is in it's current condition? Could it be why no one has the answers because we have gotten away from the basics? Freedom is just a workd no longer a right.
"I choose to be friends with like-mined people, as do others."
That's interesting. I actually choose to be friends with people who don't always agree with me. I don't mind people who think differently, just as long as they think. I feel that hanging out only with people who agree with you all the time limits a person's ability to evaluate issues from different perspectives. And seeing an issue from only one perspective isn't analyzing it at all.
"I support a Republic."
I believe virtually everyone in the US, even those who don't really distinguish between Republic and Democracy, support the goverment structure set up by the founders.
"I support The Constitution."
Again, as do we all. Some feel that if it isn't written in the Constitution than it shouldn't be part of government. But hardly anything is actually written in the Constitution. The document presents a framework for governance, not prescriptive details about every situation. Obviously many of the situations that evolved over the last two centuries could not have been foreseen at that time. The amendments to the Constitution have tried to deal with some of these issues as they have been identified, but even here the amendments provide a framework, not specific remedies. So we must interpret new issues and new information in the context of the Constitution.
"I support Free Capitalism (the likes of which are practically non-existent, because people often misuse that word and definition.) Are any of the three left?""
This presents an issue. There are those who spout "free market capitalism" like it exists, or ever existed. It doesn't, and it never did. But capitalism does exist and is even spreading. And it isn't necessarily the same everywhere. For example, China has a pseudocapitalistic economy even though it retains the communist political system.
I'm not sure how you would define "free" capitalism, because that not only suggests some broad freedom to trade as a company sees fit, but the freedom for that company to employ child or slave labor, pollute uncontrollably, and otherwise externalize as many costs onto society as it can in order to maximize profit. The Constitution, however, confers the right to pursue happiness on everyone, which means it provides for regulation of activities that while beneficial to one may be detrimental to others. We all have rights, which means one person's rights do not include uninhibited freedom to impinge on the rights of others.
A rational balance is needed. That is best accomplished when we deal from reality and not characterize every breath the other party takes as some extreme attack on the Constitution or some conspiracy theory.
I said like-minded, not clones - you seem to enjoy nit-picking.
No. progressives, like Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton/Obama do NOT support the Republic. When is the last time you even heard our Republic referenced by any President. Obama speaks "lovingly" of the Constitution but has not done one thing to support it. It's double-speak propaganda.
Free Capitalist and free markets - in their purest definitions, have not existed. There are some which do exist, but not in the national spotlight nor are they seen or talked about in any major marketplace. http://freecapitalist.com/
We can agree (or maybe not) on the philosophy but not necessarily on it's implementation.
The Constitution gave that power to the States, not the interference of the Federal Govt. States can certainly handle this on their own. We have SOME control in the States, but not on the Federal level. They have all but taken over all the State's rights, again, not to the benefit of freedom loving Americans.
SC refused the "fake" stimulus money, and wanted the Fed to apply it to the money they owed the Feds. Obama said NO, you MUST take it.
The strings that go with the "pkg" will soon be felt in an increase of state taxes. The mandate worked like this: here $ to pay for creation/support of (?) for a short period of time, but you MUST continue the (?) at your own cost.
No wonder multiple states are enacting laws to prevent the continued Federal takeover of the states, and to retain sovereignty, and to support our own state Constitutions.
You obviously still believe in the two -party system as it's continually perpetrated.
I don't think I was nit-picking, though perhaps parsing.
The Constitution gave certain powers to the states and certain powers to the federal government. But the Constitution or the founding fathers didn't know anything about transboundary pollution, so how does one deal with it? When left to the states they opted to do what was in their best short term interests and leave it for other states to deal with the pollution. Which is why the New England states literally got the fall out from industry smokestacks in Ohio. And what about pollution coming from China, which blows across the Pacific and affects the northwest coast? Should we expect the State of Washington or the State of Oregon to somehow negotiate with China (and Japan and Vietnam and Cambodia, etc.) to get them to stop externalize their industrial pollution to the states?
The Constitution provided a framework for the federal government to deal with issues that affected multiple states. There was no way for the founders to know what issues might arise.
Keep in mind also that the states ask the federal government for national level guidance and lawmaking on many issues because they feel they just can't handle it, or that it should be made uniform across all the states. So the belief that "states can certainly handle this on their own" is not entirely accurate. Most states that seem to be complaining are doing so for political reasons, not because they feel better qualified. And no state, including South Carolina, refused the stimulus funds. Some governors made a big show of pretending to refuse it, but that's because they knew the stimulus bill had a provision that the state legislature could overrule the governor and take it anyway. So having their cake and eating it too. And of course it has strings - the stimulus was designed to stimulate the economy, not be tossed into the general funds. If they don't want it, they can refuse it. None have.
I don't believe in a two party system any more than a 12 party system. And I understand the game playing probably better than most people. But I also don't believe every rumor I hear, nor do I fall for the partisan gibberish on the blogosphere.
David, I agree with your analysys of the situation. I think that the number of predictions has been somewhat over the top. Unfortunately, I fear that those who make such predictions would be the last to believe that they are biased. They are just stating the obvious truth and anyone who doesn't agree is either evil or deluded or both.
We are such frail creatures, mentally. Sigh.
I agree that there are many (most?) who wouldn't admit their biases.
Sigh, indeed.
Yeah really as early as January 2008 everyone thought it'd be Rudy against Hillary and neither of them got the nomination. You never know in three years who could be coming down the pipe.
Exactly
Hillary's biggest error was thinking she wasa shoe-in and running a top-down campaign. Rudy's error was thinking he could sit out the early primaries and capture the large Jewish vote in Florida. After all, there was a joke that whenever he spoke, it was a noun, a verb, and 9/11.
I don't think Rudy really wanted it. My guess is he just did it for the visibility it gave him so he can make even more money as a consultant. It's the only explanation for such a incomprehensible strategy. Your last line certainly was the joke, and he paid for it.
You may be right about Hillary. She and everyone else on the Democratic side underestimated Obama. But to be fair she had a dilemma. Obama had already staked out the "new guy; outside DC establishment; change you can believe in" role. Hillary therefore decided she had to be the "voice of experience" candidate. Dumb idea. This was a "change" election going all the way back to 2006 (and before). Everyone knew that. She just couldn't win on "DC experience."
I think she could have been both the experience and change candidate. She tried it late, but it was way too late. As a woman she could have been "change" and showed how her perspective would allow a different kind of thinking (aka change you can believe in). But at the same time she could tout her connections and experience meeting world leaders, seeing how Washington works, etc. Not the same DC experience that all the others had. But a new perspective on how to create change.
The only point here I will disagree with, is useually someone has to bail us out of the mess the Democrats left us in. But this time who ever is elected will have to bail us out of the mess both have left this country in.
Well, I certainly agree that the country was left in a mess. Obviously the current administration feels that the policies of the previous administration not only weren't working, but created the mess in the first place.
Um... the previous adminstration did nearly double the national debt from about 5 trillion to nearly 10 trillion. And the Republican Congress for the first 5 1/2 years of the Bush administration did send spending bill after spending bill to Republican Bush who signed every single one of them. And, the Bush administration produced the largest increase in discretionary spending since LBJ's Great Society. And the last administration, with the help of many Democrats in Congress who abdicated their Constitutionally mandated war making powers, did send us to the Iraq adventure in which we've spent $120,000.00 per minute for the last 6 years. And the Republicans championed the tax cuts that not one single Bush economic advisor has been able to say paid for themselves.
Sure the Democrats spend a lot of money, but nobody comes close to the "borrow and spend" Republicans.
How can anyone deny what Robert A stated so well. Many people choose what to believe and deny the rest.
Robert A., were your eyes open before you walked into that tree?
A lot of words to make a simple point. The political landscape changes often and quickly. It is way too early to tell who the next president will be. It won't be Obama, because he's the current president and if he's re-elected, he'll still be the current president, not the next president.
However, the democrats and liberal media are paving the way for their worst nightmare -- Dick Cheyney as the next president. This is because they keep putting him in the spotlight by overreacting to everything he says.
Now THERE'S a terrifying thought!
Chuckle! Wouldn't that be a hoot!
"A lot of words to make a simple point."
1232 words
And apparently the point isn't as obvious as it would appear.
"It won't be Obama, because he's the current president and if he's re-elected, he'll still be the current president, not the next president."
Okay, technically you are correct. I was using a broader definition of "next" to indicate the winner of the next presidential election, i.e, the one in 2012.
"However, the democrats and liberal media are paving the way for their worst nightmare -- Dick Cheyney as the next president."
Clearly this is humor, right? :)
But Cheney does represent an interesting decision for the Republicans. He and Gingrich and Palin and even Romney have been staking a far right claim (less so for Romney, but more than is wise for him). That rhetoric tends to rile up the base, but push away the moderates. The Republicans simply can't win in 2012 with just the base, unless the Obama presidency goes down in flames, in which case it will be largely irrelevant who the Republican candidate will be.
With all the Palin talk, it wouldn't surprise me to see a guy (Cheney) with a single digit approval percentage at either end of the ticket.
Cheney? If had wanted to he would have run this year. The guy doesn't want to be President, he is a behind the scenes manipulator type, not a front man. Much more power that way, and very little accountability.
Personally, I'd like to see Romney run again. Huckabee couldn't stand the thought of a Mormon as president so, even though he didn't have a chance, stayed in long enough to pave the way for McCain to win the nomination. OK Mike, look what we ended up with. Happy now?
Romney is positioning himself to run again, and at this point would have to be considered the most capable choice. But again, a lot could happen between now and then.
Huckabee, I think, stayed in to raise his profile so he could get his talk shows and do commentary. It was mathematically impossible for him to beat McCain very early on. Perhaps he was figuring that if McCain, with his age and health issues, had to drop out than Huckabee would be the only one standing.
If the economy is in deep trouble still in 2011, Romney would probably win in 2012 (not just the nomination, but the whole election).
Well thought out article and analysis David. Like you, I believe that things can change at the drop of a hat ... or a North Korean missile.
Thanks Dan
David, the mess started with Clinton, and continued. The problem with Obama, is no he does not think, he follows Pelosi's orders.
And there's an ignorant thought,
"The problem with Obama, is no he does not think, he follows Pelosi's orders."
I doubt you would find very many people that would find that statement persuasive. Though it does provide an interesting exemplar to some of the other commenters.
Dan R. I was raised in Illinois, mid state but under the Chicago Machine, which equates to strong pro union, subsidize the poor for their vote, use play for pay and stern intimidation control manipulations, tell the voters what they want to hear, then do what you intend once elected.. Lots of money under the table. soooo.
Does this sound familiar?
Yes it does. But I do think it goes a lot further, especially when you look at Obama's history of getting bills passed (none that he wrote) and now (the ones Pelosi rewrote for him) which are being passed. Obama is doing much of what Pelosi has wanted to do, and very much on her views. If you look, you can see Pelosi all over Obama's Adminstration, except the criminals he has put into his Cabinet.
I don't know how accurate this is, but it suggests that Obama wrote or cosponsored 37 bills in his two active years in the Senate (prior to running for president full time). Since he was elected in 2004 and the Democrats didn't take over the House until after the 2006 elections, that suggests that Pelosi's influence was minimal.
However, it would seem logical that the opposite of what you say is true now that he is president. Notwithstanding that president's can only propose bills and the Congress actually "writes" them, doesn't it make sense that Pelosi is actually doing what Obama wanted her to do?
"If you look, you can see Pelosi all over Obama's Adminstration, except the criminals he has put into his Cabinet."
Could you perhaps list examples of Obama's administration appointees that have "Pelosi all over" them? And for the record (no pun intended), list examples of "criminals" he has put into his Cabinet? Here's a link to the list of cabinet members. Thanks.
Obama wrote, co-wrote, sponcered, and co-sponcered 630 bills in his political carreer. Out of which none he wrote, or co-wrote was ever voted on, and most never even made it past committee before being shot down. Now that he has made President, every Bill he has written has been rewritten by Pelosi to be accepted.
I said his cabinet was mostly criminals.
"Pelosi all over Obama's Adminstration, except the criminals he has put into his Cabinet."
Yes, I understand that you think his cabinet is made up of criminals. Can you specify any criminal acts of which they have been convicted?
As for bills he has introduced as president, president's can't pass legislation. All they can do is propose a bill and then Congress has the reponsibility to pass a law if they agree with the bill. In the Republican-controlled Congress during the first 6 years of the Bush presidency, there was very little dissent from the Republican majority. And we paid the price for it. The Democrats historically have have more diversity of views, which when you think about it makes sense because America has a diversity of views. Thus it makes sense that the Democratically controlled Congress would not simply rubber stamp proposals from the president just because he belongs to the same party. That would be bad government. Instead they consider the constituents of the 535 members, many of whom will likely have a different take on the path forward.
In short, of course every bill the president has proposed has been rewritten by Congress. That is what the Constitution dictates should happen. This is a government of the people, by the people and for the people, remember. So the people's wishes (as communicated through their elected representatives) must be considered, not just a few powerful monied people.
David; "Yes, I understand that you think his cabinet is made up of criminals. Can you specify any criminal acts of which they have been convicted?"
Oh man, are you going to play stupid with me? This is how you all justify using poor judgement, or in this case, Criminal judgement... Tax dodgers, and embezzlers, are not criminals because your criminal party has kept them out of court. Sheesh you people never cease to justify your party. At least the Republicans can say their party has screwed them up, you people refuse to face any facts, and just keep repeting the same errors as if they never happen. You know what they call that, don't you? insanity.
Sorry, Dan. But everyone in Obama's Cabinet was confirmed by Congress, which included both Democratic and Republican Senators. Are they complicit in putting criminals in the Cabinet? Or that somehow none of them noticed?
And I would suggest before you toss out platitudes like "you people" and "your party" you determine who you are lumping into those categories. It doesn't help the case you would like to make if in response to a request for actual evidence of your charges you merely go off on an unsubstantiated rant lumping everyone who would like more information into some "justification" for "our" party (which party was that again?). You are conflating your obvious distaste for the current administration with accusations of criminal conduct.
You have the floor. Please list the people in Obama's Cabinet (I provided a link to their names above) and specific criminal acts of which they have been charged and/or convicted. There are laws against false accusation, so here is your chance to provide evidence to support your statement that Obama's "cabinet is made up of criminals." Name names and crimes.
Still waiting for those names, Dan. It really isn't very fair to make accusations of criminality, then not even specify who you are talking about. It's akin to saying that all people named Dan are communists.
Thank you Chuck, coming from you, that is a compliment.
Good post. Predictions are like assholes, everone has one. The only thing predictible about elections are that they are unpredictible. In 1956 few even knew who John Kennedy was. And who even dared to predict Tricky Dick would make a come back and win 2,count em' 2 terms. And Carter came out of nowhere as well as Clinton. And who would have EVER predicted a Hollywood cowboy actor would be elected much less a little rich kid fom Texas who dodged the draft during Vietnam.
Too bad the ding bat squad showed up to spoil this perfectly NON-partisan article.
"Too bad the ding bat squad showed up to spoil this perfectly NON-partisan article."
I second that one!
I suppose the question is, which ones are the "ding bat squad?"
Clearly it's too early to make predictions.
...rich east coast fratboy cheerleader, who used family influence to avoid combat in Vietnam by joining the National Guard (which didn't enter combat at that time), and went on to run several businesses into the ground even though funded by wealthy Arab investors who did it for the connection and influence of Bush Sr., and used same family connections to avoid SEC probe (Harkin Oil) that made Martha Stewart's experience seem (relatively) like jaywalking, and hired a political handler with a history of slimy practices, got set up with a stage prop ranch where he cleared brush and drove a Ford pickup to project the personality that red staters wanted to have a beer with.
...and then got "elected" a second time. Go figure.
Well, Robert, when you put it that way it sounds pretty bad.
I think many agree with you on "Go figure."
Unfortuately this administration have to bail us out of the mess that the last administration left us. The Bush administration.
I listened to an NPR interview yesterday morning where a Republican party member said that (gist) Republicans are in danger of being the party that just says No, instead of coming up with options to contribute to the dialogue (about whatever problem is on the table for examination and possible resolution)...and that if the modus operandi doesn't change, the Party may die. When a member of the Party itself says it.....
No one knows who might be our next President--or if we will have a repeat by Obama--but I do believe that candidacy announcements will start much sooner than they have in the past, by both parties, due to the success of Obama's use of that tactic.
Oh joy. Maybe another year of peace and the whole public speculation/argument thing starts all over again....at least the comedians/talk show hosts won't have to work so hard for material.
"but I do believe that candidacy announcements will start much sooner than they have in the past, by both parties, due to the success of Obama's use of that tactic."
That's an interesting observation. I'm not entirely sure I agree with it though. The 2008 election was the first in a very long time in which an incumbent president or his vice-president was not running. Also, after two terms a lot of time has passed so the heir-apparent (or heiress-apparent?) of the opposition party is, well, not so apparent. We really had a situation where we had a clean slate, and everyone wanted to take their shot at it. That's why we had 8 Republicans and 10 Democrats who officially ran for their respective nominations. With that many people in the mix, and with many of them not being well known, the extra time was needed to get the word out.
And that extra time made a difference. As has been said, Giuliani and Clinton were considered early on as the likely nominees. Neither was. Obama was someone whom most of the country hadn't heard much about when the campaign started. Add to that the fact that he was a minority, had "a funny name," and talked differently than everyone else, and he would have been dead in the water had he not had 22 months to convince people that it was safe to vote for him.
For 2012, there could be someone who comes out of the woodwork like Obama did for the Republican party. Romney, Palin, Jindal (who is trying to quell any talk about him running) all would not fit the "out of the woodwork" mold because they have been talked about for so long now (and the first two already ran in 2008). So perhaps it will be someone completely off everyone's radar.
Or, assuming that Obama's actions actually work out well for the country, the Republicans could simply put up a sacrificial lamb in 2012 (a la Bob Dole in 1996) and focus on trying to win back some Congressional seats.
Which is why any prediction now is a waste of breath.
<Obama was someone whom most of the country hadn't heard much about when the campaign started. Add to that the fact that he was a minority, had "a funny name," and talked differently than everyone else, and he would have been dead in the water had he not had 22 months to convince people that it was safe to vote for him.>
The 22 months....my point exactly. He got out there much earlier than anyone ever has before and laid intensive groundwork. Winning strategies are never ignored....and IMHO, the Republican party will be using any recently proven successful tactic, no matter which party it originated with, in its campaign for the Presidency.
Actually, he was only out in front of Clinton by a couple of weeks. And I know at least one other declared before Obama (though I can't recall who).
As for the Republicans, they have been running the 2012 campaign since election day (actually, some of them since 6 months before that). But no one has declared, nor will declare until 2011. They may be positioning themselves, but they can't run against Obama until they see whether the economy gets better or not. If the economy and public opinion looks good in late 2011, no Republican with a real chance of winning will waste his or her time.
Some of the soothsayers I remember said the first African-American president would be a Republican and a Conservertive like Condi ice or Clarence Thomas. I think that group of folks got it wrong. Who can predict the future? No one.
Condi Rice would have been an interesting candidate, at least prior to her role in the Iraq and torture thing. I remember really wanting Colin Powell to run several years ago because I thought he had the right demeanor for the job.
I think the idea that the first African-American would be a conservative was based on the presumption that all Democratic/liberal African-Americans would be more along the lines of a Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. That really was short-changing the African-American community, and assumed that any "mainstream" candidate would have to be conservative (i.e., "more rational" and "less ethnic"). Frankly, it's based on stereotypes that are so last century (or the previous century). And unless the Republican party has changed that attitude, it isn't going anywhere.
In Washington circles, it's just assumed Rice is gay and nobody really cares. But in the glare of the media spotlight, those rumors were bound to get magnified a thousandfold and the mainstream media would have had an excuse to reveal the facts that would have caused conniption fits among the Republican base.
Rice, as Provost of Stanford University long before she was on the Bush cabinet jointly owned a house and held a line of credit with documentary filmmaker Randy Bean, her female friend.
It's hard to prove her orientation one way or another. The fact is that by the time the media finished dissecting it, not a Christian conservative in the country would have gone to the polls
Rice's preferences are a moot point. In part because it should be a moot point anyway. But now because she won't be running for President anytime.
You're probably right that the religious right would not have allowed her to get near a nomination as a Republican.
David, just wondering why you choose the picture of Lincoln when posting? I don't think everyone knows the real history behind Lincoln because our history books are slanted in a misleading direction.
Knowing this, I can see why Obama is trying to hang on to his coat-tails. They are alike, but not in the way everyone was schooled to believe.
I have a personal preference for Lincoln. I also didn't want to put up a photo that leaned toward one party or another. And both parties like to claim Lincoln as their own. In a way, they both legitimately can, even though Lincoln was a Republican. But back then the Republican party had just been cobbled together from the old line Whigs, a few Know Nothings, and some others that didn't really fit in. The party back then actually resembled more the current Democratic party than the current Republican party (though you might not see too many current Republicans admitting that).
By the way, I agree that Obama is much like Lincoln, but not in the way you likely believe.
Looking back the GOP named Hillary Clinton as the Dem front runner and wanted her to get the nomination so that they could win again. It would have been red state/ blue state, flip a state and win. President Obama game plan of fighting for every vote in every state and not writing anything off was a winner of an idea.
I knew he (Obama) would be strong in the Midwest, but he won in North Carolina,Virgina, New Mexico, Colorado and even Indiana. Barack Obama broke the red state/ blue state, filp a state and win mode forever with his fight across the map strategy. This is part of the reason Republicans are so angry, the beating hurt and humiliated them so bad especially concerning Bush and the last 8 yrs and America calling it a failure and turning away from it in mass.
I agree that the Republicans would have preferred Hillary. They knew how to beat her. Obama presented a major unknown for the Republicans. For that matter, he presented a major unknown for his fellow Democratic competitors. They constantly underestimated both his public appeal and his political skills.
I take particular pride in predicting the Obama wins exactly in a post I published a couple of days before the election. His strategy was quite sophisticated, and luckily the Republicans ran such a poor campaign that he was able to maximize its advantage.
This is an excellent post. You ask that we do not mix our personal bias and prejudice, and that is a good idea.
I agree that we do not know the Future. And the Future always brings big surprises.
If the Presidential elections were next month then we can consider these facts :
The Economy is beginning to show signs of improvement, The Dow Jones, Nasdaq and Standard and Poors have been increasing during the Obama Administration. The Housing Projects and Unemployment are showing good signs of possible improvement.
No Incumbent President is evicted from office if the Economy fares well.
The Republicans are doing all possible efforts to distance themselves from Minorities and become a White Party only.
As long as Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Pat Buchanam, Tom Tancredo, etc ... are so prominent in the News, Minorities are going to abhor the Republican Party.
Sarah Palin and John McCain are not Extremists like the People mentioned before. I hope that Republicans do not follow the lead of the Extreme Right. In that case winning the Presidency becomes more difficult. Palin and McCain are intelligent, the extremists may be intelligent for money and their wallets but are not telling what they really think. In TV and Radio Right Wing Extremism is good for your wallet.
More Information :
Milenials.com
Vicente Duque
Vincent - You're points are well made. Though again there is a lot of time between now and the next election and a lot could happen.
If the economy picks up the Democrats will tout the Obama strategy as the reason. The Republicans will say that the economy is cyclical and would have recovered anyway, but look at the money spent by the administration. The winner will be whoever gets their message out with enough credibility to win over the public perception.
If the economy doesn't pick up, Obama will probably not have much of a chance.
I'm from Chicago, African American too and I felt that in order to beat the GOP in the general election that it would take a media smart, tech smart, tough Chicago style politician who dealt with the merciless Chicago newspapers for years to defeat the GOP and it happened. Barack Obama was just what the doctor ordered, the GOP didn't know what to do especially after he (Barack Obama) got on Face book, My space, You Tube, Twitter and took the GOP to school on the use on new media and technology.
IMHO- If a person can deal with the media in Chicago, the Democratic machine, John Stroger and Chicago Mayor Daley, they can deal with anything the GOP may serve up.
I'm not sure how much the Chicago really mattered. It certainly didn't matter to me. But there is no question that Obama was able to use all the tools available to his advantage. And he was a smart guy, well-balanced, and more politically savvy than people gave him credit for. He ran a 21st century campaign while everyone else was mired in the 20th century (or earlier, for some).
But then, that is what we needed - someone who thought differently. And thought, period.
David once again you have carved out a useful topic and kept it going with a healthy helping of civility.
I can't see ahead to 2012, I agree with you that too much can happen. As to the November Governor race in Virginia, I am actually willing to speculate on that one. The matchup of Bob McDonnell for the Republicans and Creigh (pronounced "Cree") Deeds is a good one, insofar as neither one is an idiot. Since McDonnell is better looking than recent Republicans running in VA, and since the Republicans are out of power nationally with considerable resentment brewing, I would have to say that they hold the high ground right now in Virginia. It's not a sure thing however. Partly it depends on motivated Dems to show up at the polls- if that does not happen, goodby Governor's mansion.
As to 2012's outcome, I am willing to speculate on FACTORS in the outcome, but no not interested in predicting the outcome. One factor will be the deficit. Republicans will be quick to judge Obama as the biggest spender of all time, and quick to forget the fact that he merely followed their example and sought to solve problems that they had ignored and or created. Okay, that was a bit partisan, but I do have to call it as I see it. Are trillions of new debt a good thing? NO. Despite being as partisan as anyone in some ways, I am not going to defend new debt or argue that it will not be a burden for our children. Obama may have felt he had no choice, but the debt is a big big problem.
The Virginia Governor's race will indeed be an interesting one to watch. Right now you would have to consider it a toss up, not surprisingly at all. But both national parties will be heaping tons of money on the race. The Republican party in particular is eager to pull this one back to their side after two Democratic administrations. Not to mention a third loss in a row would signal real trouble for the Republicans (and a real advertising blitz by the Democrats) going into next year's Congressional mid-terms.
Deeds will have the disadvantage of not having any coattails to ride because of the off year election. But guaranteed he'll see lots of national figures. That said, he partially won the primary because the big national figure (McAuliffe) was seen as "foreign" by many Virginians. So it will be a balancing act. McDonnell beat Deeds (barely) for Attorney General a few years back, so he'll be sure to tout that precedent.
I'm actually looking forward to taking a closer look at this race (and to a lesser extent the one in New Jersey) as the election gets closer.
"One factor will be the deficit. Republicans will be quick to judge Obama as the biggest spender of all time, and quick to forget the fact that he merely followed their example and sought to solve problems that they had ignored and or created."
This is one case where "it's the economy, stupid" is apt. If the economy looks good, the Democrats will be able to credibly argue that the debt is short-term and remind everyone that the Republicans were the ones that dug the hole (whether it is completely true or not). If the economy is still bad enough that people are hurting, they will be more likely to listen to the inevitable Republican argument that Obama and the Democratically controlled Congress is just "tax and spend."
And we won't know any of this for quite a while.
David,
One fact that is usually overlooked in congressional races is that we talk about the voters wanting "more Republicans" or "more Democrats" when in actuality, those people are often elected by the voters in each state independently of what the nation "wants." Nationwide voters may want say, Republican, but if the incumbent Democrat has done a good job of pulling in the pork for the state, the voters may well prefer to return him to the congress and let the voters of other states worry about the make up of congress.
True enough. Districts/States vote on their representatives, and they don't necessarily do any calculus to determine if there are too many of any one party. And most districts/states are pretty safe one way or the other, barring any scandal or other calamity to the incumbent.
That said, there is a tendency to start getting uncomfortable when one party gets too much control. Not so much because they are number crunching, but because the party in control tends to push their ideology instead of governing properly. Whether that will be the case by the next election still remains to be seen (you would think the parties would smarten up on this issue).
So it is the moderate districts/states that will, should they become uncomfortable, start shifting the balance.
It almost doesn't matter relative to the big problems we have. Whomever the next president is, we'll probably still be borrowing money to prop up our bloated, overreaching military empire of more than 800 bases, while we use the excuse of "global war on terror" to invade and occupy the same or more sovereign foreign nations. We'll continue to spend more than all other countries combined for "defense" spending and borrow the money to do it, until the whole thing collapses.
Both parties do tend to borrow money to prop up their particular priorities, and defense seems to get the biggest share of any. I think the current administration has dropped the "war on terror" moniker, though obviously we still have two wars, Gitmo, and a few other pans in the fire.
Yes David, at this point it is borrow and borrow more. At this point we would do well to look at how much we spend on "defense," but we don't really know how much that is since much of it is "black" spending that's off the books. I recall last year Rep. Jan Schakowsky and others in Congress wanted to find out how much we were spending on the Blackwater "private army" and even they couldn't find out. The part of "defense" spending we know about is roughly 400 billion per year, but most experts suggest it's closer (in reality) to 600 billion per year. Since the evil empire (USSR) is gone, why do we, with 6% of the world population, need to spend more than all countries representing the other 94% of the world, combined?
Yes, the current administration has dropped the "war on terror" slogan (Great Britain officially did that last year as the other last holdout), but it's the same game. Now Obama refers to it as radical violence, but it's largely being exploited, still with the 9/11 references, to be able to carry out policies that otherwise wouldn't have the support.
Unfortunately there is a good deal of Defense activity that is not out in the open due to "national security" concerns. Some of it is legitimate; some of it perhaps more questionable.
The "war on terror" slogan was more than just a slogan. It was a sign-up card for those who hate us (and there are those who hate us). Dropping it removes one recruitment tool for their side. But that doesn't mean that terrorists and other anti-US folks aren't still out there. Or that we don't still have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan (and dozens of other countries). The point is that it doesn't go away just because we stop giving it a bumper sticker name. But the policy has changed whether it appears so on the surface or not. We have other tools that are being used that we weren't using (or at least not using effectively) in the past. Time will tell whether the results are better.