As I ponder the possibility of an Obama Victory here are some my thoughts. Hope you will share yours.
If he wins:
The media has had a love affair with Obama (for good reason) but there is bound to be a let down of some sort once we see him in action. A good leader can get us through that and I believe he would but there will be a let down.
Obama's election will raise expectations among people of color – rightly so, of course. But there is bound to be a higher level of frustration once minorities realize that even with Obama's victory they will still face formidable challenges. Some folks have argued that the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s raised expectations and when those expectations were not fully realized it led to civil unrest.
Conversely, minority folks who felt like perpetual outsiders in the U.S. will now feel more fully invested in our system ensuring a smoother transition into what has been called the "browning of the U.S."
Obama will own his party. He will redefine the Democrats. Perhaps more so than any Democrat since Roosevelt. The Left will not look like it looked before.
Fiscal responsibility would have to have a positive impact on our bottom line.
Republicans will also need to redefine their party. Question is will they break towards the Center or more likely, break even further to the Right (somewhere just short of fascism (we hope)).
I agree with many of your contentions, positives I look forward to when/if Obama wins:
1) A stop of the witch hunt against homosexuals.
2) Limited military spending. I support a powerful military, but we are getting out of control. Short term massive spending may be required, but without a long term tax plan to pay for it we can not afford it. Don't butcher the military by any means, but get it in check.
3) Minorities will/should feel more vested and the "the man keeping us down" factor should be mitigated. Another step towards showing that anyone can do anything in these United States.
4) International relations should improve. I have some fear that he will get used in this regard, but am confident the net effect will be a positive. We are not well liked worldwide. Opinions I do not care about, but the general level of distrust of our positions, dislike of our economic interests, and the loss of an ability to persuade are areas that I care about.
Toss in increased international travel TO the United States and it's certainly a "W."
5) I believe civil rights (fears on property rights via redistribution and free speech via the "fairness doctrine" reserved) will improve. The self spying will probably be reigned in, the patriot act tamed, and other hostile elements of government calmed. At least, I hope so.
6) Immigration reform may actually happen. Actual real immigration reform. At this point we either need to build a giant wall and shoot anyone trying to get over, under, or around it - or change the system to facilitate the needs and wants of American employers and Mexican workers.
7) Openness. I feel Barrack Obama will have a more open White House than we currently have. I feel nearly ANYONE would have a more open White House, but Barrack has a more open feel to him. Just a feeling...
8) YOUTH. Some youth in the White House will be a nice change. It should just seem more "fresh."
Fact is, I'm looking forward to "change" on many levels. Clearly I am reserved on multiple fronts (per other posts), but in most ways a step away from Bush is a step in the correct direction.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
As I ponder the possibility of an Obama Victory here are some my thoughts. Hope you will share yours.
If he wins:
The media has had a love affair with Obama (for good reason) but there is bound to be a let down of some sort once we see him in action. A good leader can get us through that and I believe he would but there will be a let down.
Obama's election will raise expectations among people of color – rightly so, of course. But there is bound to be a higher level of frustration once minorities realize that even with Obama's victory they will still face formidable challenges. Some folks have argued that the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s raised expectations and when those expectations were not fully realized it led to civil unrest.
Conversely, minority folks who felt like perpetual outsiders in the U.S. will now feel more fully invested in our system ensuring a smoother transition into what has been called the "browning of the U.S."
Obama will own his party. He will redefine the Democrats. Perhaps more so than any Democrat since Roosevelt. The Left will not look like it looked before.
Fiscal responsibility would have to have a positive impact on our bottom line.
Republicans will also need to redefine their party. Question is will they break towards the Center or more likely, break even further to the Right (somewhere just short of fascism (we hope)).
Why would we hope that the right would break like that?
While quite a lot of you believe I drink the left's kool-aid without question, you'd be surprised to know that I'm more centrist or even, heaven forbid, conservative on a lot of ideals.
Abortion..while I believe it's the choice of the woman, I also believe options should be made. Personally, I'm against it. But it's the word of law right now.
Immigration - best done when legal; send those who are here illegally home and do NOT provide amnesty for those illegals already here.
I am Christian, but I'm not a 'bible-thumper'. I do not attend church (I believe organized churches are farcical and really only exist for people to give their hard-earned money over to for no good reason).
I grew up in a lower middle class abusive household with little for myself; then having to take care of my Mother during my senior year, and now, being the only unmarried-by-way-divorce-with-no-children child of my Mother, I wind up taking care of her again at age 40 when she divorces my dad because he has essentially 'lost his marbles'.
I don't complain about that, but I've now seen first-hand how the system works for people like my Mother (she is fully handicapped but can live fairly independently) and I would like to see change. I don't believe the ultra-Caucasian Republican party has that ability right now (yes, I did say that, because for the most part, it's true). For the last eight years, the Republicans have been more worried about advancing their agenda then they have been worried about the Americans that they serve.
I'm not saying Democrats aren't guilty of the same or couldn't be guilty. But it will take ALL PARTIES, not just one, to fix the problem.
Quit squabbling, no matter who wins, and let's fix the country in January!
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Obama will own his party. He will redefine the Democrats. Perhaps more so than any Democrat since Roosevelt. The Left will not look like it looked before.
What was the general feel on Clinton amongst Dems then? I always assumed he had somewhat of a mandate on the Democrat party after 1992, or did they cease their love affair when he went centrist (or Democrat Lite) after giving the more liberal parts of his agenda only a token effort?
I'm just curious what you are getting at here because I kinda thought the Clintons owned the party for 8 years.
The end of Reaganism and the catastrophe of trickle down economics and the veneration of All Things Ayn Rand.
The beginning of the reconstruction of this country after the chaos and destruction of the Republican party.
If McCain wins, however, healthcare in this country will get even worse. Infant mortality rates will continue their march upward until they finally surpass those of Eastern European countries, and American healthcare will begin the descent into 3rd World status.
The wealthy will be well taken care of, of course, because they are the source of all good in this country, at least according to Republican philosophy. Kind of like the Vatican and the nobles of European feudalism.
The poor, however? Well, it's their own damned fault anyway so who cares - or so says the wingers.
Under McCain, languages other than English will gain even greater notoriety as evils to be purged from our nation, and schools and universities will offer even fewer courses in them than they do now. Education will be eyed with tremendous suspicion, although our high schools will continue to suffer the damned if they do damned if they don't syndrome --- they will continue graduating the functionally illiterate because they have no means of educating them and otherwise, the federal government won't fund them. Just make sure they can pass the tests!
Our futures will be completely given over to those who can best care for it, as it's obvious we peons, suffering as we do to pay the bills, are thoroughly incompetent. Best let the CEOs and hedge fund managers take control of things even more than they do now. They're rich, which is the equivalent of God Status under Reagonomics and Bushnism, and they will ensure we continue to be held hostage to their Biblical edicts - which, of course, don't have anything to do with them because they're RICH, after all, which means God is smiling upon them ... but not us, for some reason.
Yes, life under McCain will really suck even more than it does under that idiot in the WH now.
I just hope it doesn't come to pass.
Obama's machine isn't going away. He's done some really revolutionary organizing (and fundraising) and the question is going to be, what happens to it when it's initial purpose is accomplished? He's going to have this extra-governmental grass-roots structure he can call on. How will he use it? Can he use it?
We'll have to see what happens on election day to see if they turn out, but Obama could also have a whole generation of young politically responsive Americans on his side. High school and college ages primarily. I'm speculating from what I've read, but it's sounding like this campaign has been a galvanizing experience for an entire generation of kids. If true, Obama's succeeded in cementing his legacy within liberal American politics for the next couple of decades or more, and he hasn't even won the election yet. The groundwork he's done for the Democratic Party of the future is beyond estimating.
I think his effect on black Americans will be hugely beneficial on the surface of things, but also hugely complex. He shatters a lot of biases, but also confirms a lot of them, too. That's really just to say that race issues in America are never, ever going to go away. Period. And I wish it were different, but it isn't. On a personal level, I'm terribly proud that a majority of my countrymen seem to be capable of seeing past race and into the content of the man's heart and head. There's going to be that reprobate minority that just can't cotton to it, but if a black man can win this election in something even approaching a landslide, then the USA isn't nearly as down and out as I thought it was.
Regaining our international reputation may be one of the most important things to get out of an Obama presidency, in my opinion, and as an internationalist, I DO care what the world thinks, It's from the rest of the world that we derive all of our soft power, which is what gets things done 90% of the time. We're a likeable country. When we do what we say we're going to do and live up to our own ideals, we're irresistible. An Obama Presidency is the best and most obvious evidence that we've turned away from Bush and all that he stands for. That alone will open doors that have been shut to us.
Last thought: I'm not sure the Baby Boomers are ready to go so quietly. I'm not sure how that will play out, but I'm convinced that generational politics were one of the major untold stories about this campaign season. Age, experience is going to continue to play a role in an Obama administration, but not in the way McCain or the MSM seem to want to point up. The BBers brought with them a whole slew of generational pathologies and priorities that we've seen played out over and over again from Clinton down through Bush. Obama isn't part of that, and is trying to construct a political order that is post-Vietnam, post-Civil Rights, post-Watergate, post-Summer of Love. I really can see that he's conscious of the differences in generation, but I think that the BBers still in government will try to reimpose those priorities on his Administration . . . or at least reimpose the same terms of debate. Don't know what all that means other than I think Obama represents some big stuff, changes that were going to happen anyway but are crystallizing around him.
It's an exciting and scary time, is all I can say.
we vs us, I'm a Boomer, and I'm thrilled about Obama. The Summer of Love needs to be laid to rest once and for all. I never was a fan of it anyway.
What excited me was the promise of the Civil Rights movement for all people, including Whites, and its emphasis on education, peaceful resistance and resolution, and more for the other than ourselves. All of that was quite nearly destroyed, but I think what (fingers crossed) is being ushered in will re-awaken it.
The age of bumper stickers reading "Whoever dies with the most toys wins" will finally be over, in other words.
But there's a lot of work that'll need to be done.
I think because of his diverse cultural upbringing, he may be the U.S. President who actually works out a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians.
Didn't Carter start this with the Camp David Accords?
Every U.S. President since has tried, but Obama may be able to make progress in that region that no other President has.
quote:
Originally posted by cecelia
The end of Reaganism and the catastrophe of trickle down economics and the veneration of All Things Ayn Rand.
The beginning of the reconstruction of this country after the chaos and destruction of the Republican party.
If McCain wins, however, healthcare in this country will get even worse. Infant mortality rates will continue their march upward until they finally surpass those of Eastern European countries, and American healthcare will begin the descent into 3rd World status.
The wealthy will be well taken care of, of course, because they are the source of all good in this country, at least according to Republican philosophy. Kind of like the Vatican and the nobles of European feudalism.
The poor, however? Well, it's their own damned fault anyway so who cares - or so says the wingers.
Under McCain, languages other than English will gain even greater notoriety as evils to be purged from our nation, and schools and universities will offer even fewer courses in them than they do now. Education will be eyed with tremendous suspicion, although our high schools will continue to suffer the damned if they do damned if they don't syndrome --- they will continue graduating the functionally illiterate because they have no means of educating them and otherwise, the federal government won't fund them. Just make sure they can pass the tests!
Our futures will be completely given over to those who can best care for it, as it's obvious we peons, suffering as we do to pay the bills, are thoroughly incompetent. Best let the CEOs and hedge fund managers take control of things even more than they do now. They're rich, which is the equivalent of God Status under Reagonomics and Bushnism, and they will ensure we continue to be held hostage to their Biblical edicts - which, of course, don't have anything to do with them because they're RICH, after all, which means God is smiling upon them ... but not us, for some reason.
Yes, life under McCain will really suck even more than it does under that idiot in the WH now.
I just hope it doesn't come to pass.
I don't know who pi**ed on your entire life but it had to be more than the Republican Party. Please promise me that you will move to another country if McCain wins.
quote:
I don't know who pi**ed on your entire life but it had to be more than the Republican Party. Please promise me that you will move to another country if McCain wins.
My life is fine. [:D]
But it's the lives of others that I've seen ruined by this administration, and the Republicans in general, that leads me to my conclusions.
I count myself fortunate that I'm not so insulated from reality or so cold to the world that I'm unaffected when I see what's happening to our most vulnerable populations --- our children, our elderlies, and increasingly, to us.
Then again, this is one of the reddest states in the country. It also has one of the highest child abuse and domestic violence rates, worst educational systems, and largest prison populations. Funny, isn't it, how Republicanism and abuse rates and poverty and horrid educations (except for the very wealthiest) seem to go hand in hand.
Fortunately, most of the rest of the country isn't interested. [:)]
quote:
Originally posted by cecelia
quote:
I don't know who pi**ed on your entire life but it had to be more than the Republican Party. Please promise me that you will move to another country if McCain wins.
My life is fine. [:D]
But it's the lives of others that I've seen ruined by this administration, and the Republicans in general, that leads me to my conclusions.
I count myself fortunate that I'm not so insulated from reality or so cold to the world that I'm unaffected when I see what's happening to our most vulnerable populations --- our children, our elderlies, and increasingly, to us.
Then again, this is one of the reddest states in the country. It also has one of the highest child abuse and domestic violence rates, worst educational systems, and largest prison populations. Funny, isn't it, how Republicanism and abuse rates and poverty and horrid educations (except for the very wealthiest) seem to go hand in hand.
Fortunately, most of the rest of the country isn't interested. [:)]
I disagree with most of your conclusions from your observations. I'm sure your mind is made up so I won't try to confuse you with facts. This state is very red in national elections (thank the deity of your choice) but very purple locally.
quote:
Originally posted by cecelia
The end of Reaganism and the catastrophe of trickle down economics and the veneration of All Things Ayn Rand.
The beginning of the reconstruction of this country after the chaos and destruction of the Republican party.
If McCain wins, however, healthcare in this country will get even worse. Infant mortality rates will continue their march upward until they finally surpass those of Eastern European countries, and American healthcare will begin the descent into 3rd World status.
The wealthy will be well taken care of, of course, because they are the source of all good in this country, at least according to Republican philosophy. Kind of like the Vatican and the nobles of European feudalism.
The poor, however? Well, it's their own damned fault anyway so who cares - or so says the wingers.
Under McCain, languages other than English will gain even greater notoriety as evils to be purged from our nation, and schools and universities will offer even fewer courses in them than they do now. Education will be eyed with tremendous suspicion, although our high schools will continue to suffer the damned if they do damned if they don't syndrome --- they will continue graduating the functionally illiterate because they have no means of educating them and otherwise, the federal government won't fund them. Just make sure they can pass the tests!
Our futures will be completely given over to those who can best care for it, as it's obvious we peons, suffering as we do to pay the bills, are thoroughly incompetent. Best let the CEOs and hedge fund managers take control of things even more than they do now. They're rich, which is the equivalent of God Status under Reagonomics and Bushnism, and they will ensure we continue to be held hostage to their Biblical edicts - which, of course, don't have anything to do with them because they're RICH, after all, which means God is smiling upon them ... but not us, for some reason.
Yes, life under McCain will really suck even more than it does under that idiot in the WH now.
I just hope it doesn't come to pass.
Do hyperbole much?
According to some of the "people" the national TV news shows (NBC, CBS, ABC) have interviewed, if Obama wins we will all be eating watermellon and "chitlins," wearing tap shoes, capping our front teeth gold, and praising Allah. The prejudice and ignorance still alive in this country in 2008 is incredible.
IMO, an Obama victory is eminent and the best thing that could happen to the U.S. at this time.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
but very purple locally.
Oklahoma Democrats are much closer to Bill Frist than Obama or Ted Kennedy. They're right around where Arlen Specter is. In many states, if not most, they wouldn't be Democrats.
if he wins....people will become better aims.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
if he wins....people will become better aims.
Do you think you are being funny?
I know a certain animal that will be unhappy:
http://www.nation.co.ke/News/regional/-/1070/486150/-/6l1wko/-/
We vs. Us, Obama was born in 1961. Baby Boomers were born from 1946 until 1964. Obama is a Boomer.
There are subgroups within the Boomer years. Older, Middle and Younger. And there is a dynamic that plays out between the Boomer Subgroups.
Cecelia, I'm with you girl. You are right on the money.
Inteller, A threat against the life of a U.S. President is a Federal Offense.
Conan, Remember that spanking you're going to get? Well it got started last Friday and will continue until 7 p.m. on Tuesday. That stinging sensation you feel is the strong arm of the Left.
Clarification, Re; boomer conflict.
I know that Obama is technically a Baby Boomer, but he's advancing an agenda that is very specifically post-Boomer. He's trying to sidestep or nullify some of the culture war arguments that have mired Boomer politics; this, to me, is why he has such a great appeal to younger voters.
I agree with WevsUs. He is technically a boomer but pragmatically outside of it. He is not saddled with our baggage. That is why he has such magnetism to youth. Wevsus has my vote for one of the top five smartest, most insightful contributors to the forum.
Cecilia- thanks for writing my views so eloquently and frankly. It is especially gratifying that you do so from a position of comfort. Says much about you.
Obama will not attempt to spend his well earned capital quickly and mercilessly as BushII did. I see a period of time where once again, the best, brightest, and this time...the most pragmatic are moved into positions of influence. His leadership will be quiet and firm in restoring the balance of powers that Bush/Cheney eroded.
Congress will be surprised as they will find him contrary to their more local desires just as Clinton surprised them. I don't believe his first term will be immune to the old gotcha' games that conservative Republicans have excelled at the past two decades. But mostly they will fizzle as they will spend much of the first two years digesting the results, culling the herd and rebuilding.
Implications for OK? Few. I spoke to a man at the park this weekend at the very quiet, very poorly attended Rally for Change. I lamented that OK once again is resolutely defending their failure to comprehend and adjust to the change in times. As usual I blame the rural, white, evangelical fundies and their disproportionate power in the state. He made the remark that it was "Bible thumpers" in OK who really ticked him off. He said if they had really read their Bible there is no way they could justify being conservatives. The Bible, he insisted, provides the reasoning and the path for us all to be Liberals. He then informed me that he had been a minister for many years. We're not all blind in this state.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Conan, Remember that spanking you're going to get? Well it got started last Friday and will continue until 7 p.m. on Tuesday. That stinging sensation you feel is the strong arm of the Left.
HT - Attitudes like this are exactly why Obama will probably be unsuccessful in his attempt to truly unite the country. People like you who don't even make an attempt to get along with minority conservatives. There is supposed to be some give and take in politics (and a short memory of the past). What of Obama's most leftwing supporter's agendas would they be willing to compromise on to placate the moderates and right wingers in the name of unity?
bbriscoe,
I have to say that I can't get through a day without saying something hateful about Republicans. I don't even try to be bipartisan. And anyone that has followed my posts knows that I stay on message.
Luckily for you, Obama is a little more inclusive than I am.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Inteller, A threat against the life of a U.S. President is a Federal Offense.
I never threatened the president you ****ing nut job.
More rambling:
It depends on the margin of victory, but an Obama victory will change the GOP as well. There're already huge cracks appearing in the Reagan coalition, and I really think this Primary season was fascinating because you had each of the three major constituencies of the party vying for control: The fiscal cons (represented by Mitt Romney); the Evangelicals (represented by Huckabee) and the Hawks (represented by Giuliani). I also think there was the emergence of another strong splinter group in Ron Paul, who is essentially the face of the libertarian wing of the GOP. McCain, sort of a Hawk, chose Palin, sort of an Evangelical. Both were weak choices, in that they didn't put to rest the widening rifts between the different factions (cf. Will, Parker, Powell, and other defections). They also couldn't find a way to simultaneously unify the party while offering a compelling change from the Bush years.
In the absence of a real strong policy thrust within the party, Rove's political techniques became the policy. There's been precious little discussion by McCain/Palin of the actual issues; all of their energy has gone to try to characterize Obama as unfit to lead. It's all been about personality (code word is "character issues"), with almost no policy argument. I also think that McCain was just too weak and undisciplined a candidate to control the forces running his campaign. Hence the almost immediate plunge into gutter politics, whisper attacks, and innuendo. And flat out lies, of which there have been many. McCain is not an evil guy, but he's unrecognizable this go around.
I think that a lot of Obama's popularity doesn't have just to do with what he is, but it has to do with what he isn't. There's a real exhaustion with Rove style politics, and while that kind of fighting comes naturally to maybe a fifth of the population, there're a lot of people it just disgusts. I'm not naive enough to believe that this will be the end of it all, but I do think that win-at-all-costs electioneering took a serious blow during this cycle.
So, my thinking is, if there's anything approaching a Democratic wave, lots of moderate GOP districts will by and large flip to moderate Dem districts. This will leave the most solid -- and probably the most radical -- GOP loyalists in Congress. If the Dems can't break the magic number in the Senate, we're going to be in for a long session of obstruction and filibuster, since what's left of the GOP won't be much into policy compromises. They'll view themselves as the last keepers of the ideological flame.
I'm just not sure how the four swirling interest groups make up with each other. There's real tension between the Evangelicals (who brought anti-intellectualism in with them) and the fiscal cons and the wargaming think tankers at the Heritage foundation, etc. All the groups overlap somewhat, but the ties that bind them have become strained. I also don't think that America is ever going to have a third viable party in my lifetime, so there's going to have to be either some realignment within the GOP to accomodate the jostling, or one of the interest groups itself will have to split and reconstitute itself (it's said that that's where the neocons came from originally: Dems disaffected by their party's perceived weakness on Communism and support for Isreal). In any event, I really foresee a some time in the wilderness for the Republican party, until at least they can calm the divisions within and let the Obama Democrats finally define themselves with some policy decisions. At that point they'll have something to be united against.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
As I ponder the possibility of an Obama Victory here are some my thoughts. Hope you will share yours.
If he wins:
The media has had a love affair with Obama (for good reason) but there is bound to be a let down of some sort once we see him in action. A good leader can get us through that and I believe he would but there will be a let down.
Obama's election will raise expectations among people of color – rightly so, of course. But there is bound to be a higher level of frustration once minorities realize that even with Obama's victory they will still face formidable challenges. Some folks have argued that the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s raised expectations and when those expectations were not fully realized it led to civil unrest.
Conversely, minority folks who felt like perpetual outsiders in the U.S. will now feel more fully invested in our system ensuring a smoother transition into what has been called the "browning of the U.S."
Obama will own his party. He will redefine the Democrats. Perhaps more so than any Democrat since Roosevelt. The Left will not look like it looked before.
Fiscal responsibility would have to have a positive impact on our bottom line.
Republicans will also need to redefine their party. Question is will they break towards the Center or more likely, break even further to the Right (somewhere just short of fascism (we hope)).
Good post Hometown. Whomever wins, they will be MY President and will need our support in these difficult times.
Have a great evening.
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
I think because of his diverse cultural upbringing, he may be the U.S. President who actually works out a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians.
Didn't Carter start this with the Camp David Accords?
Every U.S. President since has tried, but Obama may be able to make progress in that region that no other President has.
We can hope. We can hope.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
More rambling:
It depends on the margin of victory, but an Obama victory will change the GOP as well. There're already huge cracks appearing in the Reagan coalition, and I really think this Primary season was fascinating because you had each of the three major constituencies of the party vying for control: The fiscal cons (represented by Mitt Romney); the Evangelicals (represented by Huckabee) and the Hawks (represented by Giuliani). I also think there was the emergence of another strong splinter group in Ron Paul, who is essentially the face of the libertarian wing of the GOP. McCain, sort of a Hawk, chose Palin, sort of an Evangelical. Both were weak choices, in that they didn't put to rest the widening rifts between the different factions (cf. Will, Parker, Powell, and other defections). They also couldn't find a way to simultaneously unify the party while offering a compelling change from the Bush years.
In the absence of a real strong policy thrust within the party, Rove's political techniques became the policy. There's been precious little discussion by McCain/Palin of the actual issues; all of their energy has gone to try to characterize Obama as unfit to lead. It's all been about personality (code word is "character issues"), with almost no policy argument. I also think that McCain was just too weak and undisciplined a candidate to control the forces running his campaign. Hence the almost immediate plunge into gutter politics, whisper attacks, and innuendo. And flat out lies, of which there have been many. McCain is not an evil guy, but he's unrecognizable this go around.
I think that a lot of Obama's popularity doesn't have just to do with what he is, but it has to do with what he isn't. There's a real exhaustion with Rove style politics, and while that kind of fighting comes naturally to maybe a fifth of the population, there're a lot of people it just disgusts. I'm not naive enough to believe that this will be the end of it all, but I do think that win-at-all-costs electioneering took a serious blow during this cycle.
So, my thinking is, if there's anything approaching a Democratic wave, lots of moderate GOP districts will by and large flip to moderate Dem districts. This will leave the most solid -- and probably the most radical -- GOP loyalists in Congress. If the Dems can't break the magic number in the Senate, we're going to be in for a long session of obstruction and filibuster, since what's left of the GOP won't be much into policy compromises. They'll view themselves as the last keepers of the ideological flame.
I'm just not sure how the four swirling interest groups make up with each other. There's real tension between the Evangelicals (who brought anti-intellectualism in with them) and the fiscal cons and the wargaming think tankers at the Heritage foundation, etc. All the groups overlap somewhat, but the ties that bind them have become strained. I also don't think that America is ever going to have a third viable party in my lifetime, so there's going to have to be either some realignment within the GOP to accomodate the jostling, or one of the interest groups itself will have to split and reconstitute itself (it's said that that's where the neocons came from originally: Dems disaffected by their party's perceived weakness on Communism and support for Isreal). In any event, I really foresee a some time in the wilderness for the Republican party, until at least they can calm the divisions within and let the Obama Democrats finally define themselves with some policy decisions. At that point they'll have something to be united against.
There are really five main political movements in the United States today. And it would not be bad to have this election split our two parties into five better defined.
We should have Liberal, Christian Democrats, Labor, Conservative (as in business conservative) and Progressive parties.
I would group our most recent presidents and our candidates this way: Reagan was a Conservative, Bush I and Clinton were Progressives, Bush II is a Christian Democrat and Obama is probably going to be a Liberal. McCain was a progressive but has pandered to the Christian Democrats so much who knows where he stands. Palin is a Christian Democrat and Biden would be Labor. Hillary is a Progressive, as is Guiliani, Romney is a Conservative and Huckabee is a Christian Democrat.
The old definitions of Democrat and Republican don't fit well any longer. And both parties use their knee jerk bases (Republican use Social Conservatives while Democrats use Labor and Minorities) and candidates often are hamstrung by having to pander to those bases.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
I would group our most recent presidents and our candidates this way: Reagan was a Conservative, Bush I and Clinton were Progressives, Bush II is a Christian Democrat and Obama is probably going to be a Liberal. McCain was a progressive but has pandered to the Christian Democrats so much who knows where he stands. Palin is a Christian Democrat and Biden would be Labor. Hillary is a Progressive, as is Guiliani, Romney is a Conservative and Huckabee is a Christian Democrat.
If you're grouping Palin and the Huckster, you're not seeing things straight. The only thing they share is their religion.
You may want to rethink your 'parties.'
So the Politico wrote it out much better than I did, though I scooped them by a couple of days. [8D]
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15300.html
PS. Waterboy, thanks for the compliment!
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by swake
I would group our most recent presidents and our candidates this way: Reagan was a Conservative, Bush I and Clinton were Progressives, Bush II is a Christian Democrat and Obama is probably going to be a Liberal. McCain was a progressive but has pandered to the Christian Democrats so much who knows where he stands. Palin is a Christian Democrat and Biden would be Labor. Hillary is a Progressive, as is Guiliani, Romney is a Conservative and Huckabee is a Christian Democrat.
If you're grouping Palin and the Huckster, you're not seeing things straight. The only thing they share is their religion.
You may want to rethink your 'parties.'
Elaborate on that. I think Swake's analysis, based somewhat on the same ramblings that WeVsUs made, are pretty accurate.
Wevy made a strong insight that the remaining Congressional republicans are the true believers and will be impossible to sway without heapings of pork or allegations of impropriety. Think Inhofe. Might be good for OK.
With this in mind, watch carefully to see who the high profiles in their party blame for this loss. Buchanan is pointing at McCain. The intellectuals and the Heritage folks are blaming Palin. Babe Buchanan and many others insist the country remains center right and blame BushII. Whoever wins that battle of words decides the off year success of their party. If they decide McCain and Bush were to blame, they will lose even more seats. The country is indeed moving away from the center right and a move in the Palin direction will be disastrous.
One implication that I welcome ...
The election drove a stake through the heart of the already-dubious notion of the Bradley Effect. Stick a fork in it; it's done. Near as I can tell, the polls and the actual results were pretty much the same and at least in the margin of error.
On another matter, it amuses me to hear the same pundits who called Obama a "socialist" for weeks insist on Election Night that the United States is still a "center-right" nation. That's part of the GOP's problem; it can't keep its stories straight.
I'm surprised that few people have brought this up, but watch the Supreme Court go more leftward. You could see at least two and as many as four Justices retire during Obama's term.
For me, the election was a repudiation against torture. That was one of the issues during the Bush Administration that sickened me. I knew some World War II veterans, and they were adamant and proud that they didn't torture enemy prisoners even though they knew that captive Americans suffered greatly. "We're better than that," I heard more than one of them explain their motivation in taking the high road. I was thankful those old veterans didn't hear about what happened to terrorism suspects -- many of whom were freed later -- in our custody. They would have been heartbroken.
Another lesson learned: Don't start a war unless you're damned sure you've got an airtight reason to do so.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
For me, the election was a repudiation against torture. That was one of the issues during the Bush Administration that sickened me. I knew some World War II veterans, and they were adamant and proud that they didn't torture enemy prisoners even though they knew that captive Americans suffered greatly. "We're better than that," I heard more than one of them explain their motivation in taking the high road. I was thankful those old veterans didn't hear about what happened to terrorism suspects -- many of whom were freed later -- in our custody. They would have been heartbroken.
Amen. I hope Obama puts an end to the torture/rendition/Quantanamo Bay regime quickly and completely. That stuff has to go, like, yesterday.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Elaborate on that. I think Swake's analysis, based somewhat on the same ramblings that WeVsUs made, are pretty accurate.
Wevy made a strong insight that the remaining Congressional republicans are the true believers and will be impossible to sway without heapings of pork or allegations of impropriety. Think Inhofe. Might be good for OK.
Palin is a dogmatic fundie. Huckabee is a person who has the intestinal fortitude to do what needs to be done, even when that consists of raising taxes, despite his religion and political affiliation.
I'd put Inhofe in with Palin. Dogmatic right winger.
And rwarn, despite the right wing fearmongers claims, Obama isn't all that left wing. Compared to Bush or Arkansas Democrats he is, but he's really quite centrist, and it seems likely you'll see that reflected in any Supreme Court appointments he might get to make.
Personally, I'd like to see a couple who are farther left to offset Bush's appointments and numbnuts Scalia, but I don't think Obama will play that game.
And yes, Obama needs to bring the War on Terror back into the realm of law enforcement. It's simply not a military problem in most cases. Afghanistan was an exception, although badly bungled thanks to Bush taking his eye off the ball and going for Iraq.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
Obama's machine isn't going away. He's done some really revolutionary organizing (and fundraising) and the question is going to be, what happens to it when it's initial purpose is accomplished? He's going to have this extra-governmental grass-roots structure he can call on. How will he use it? Can he use it?
Welcome to the new machine:Change.gov. (//%22http://www.change.gov/%22)
Man, I'm good.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
And rwarn, despite the right wing fearmongers claims, Obama isn't all that left wing. Compared to Bush or Arkansas Democrats he is, but he's really quite centrist, and it seems likely you'll see that reflected in any Supreme Court appointments he might get to make.
HA! He was raised by communists! Conceived in Cuba and born in Kenya! His 'father' was a long-time communist agitator in Kenya - eventually forced out.
Implications of the O? A communist-leaning dictatorship! Once O's tax-and-spend policies fail he is going to demand greater control of the economy and Congress is going to give it to him.
You think Inhofe's status is going to equate to more gimmes for Sooners? May as well have elected a mannequin and sent it to the Gulag! We can only hope that Gub Brad's early O-worship will offset our craven GOP delegation in the O's mind.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
HA! He was raised by communists! Conceived in Cuba and born in Kenya! His 'father' was a long-time communist agitator in Kenya - eventually forced out.
I see you've been listening to much Limbaugh, Hannity, and friends. Why don't you get the facts, rather than believing BS spewed by the right wing hate machine?
Well, I don't know about what his father did, but Obama the younger only met Obama the elder once in his entire life, so does it really matter even if what you say is true?
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
HA! He was raised by communists! Conceived in Cuba and born in Kenya! His 'father' was a long-time communist agitator in Kenya - eventually forced out.
Implications of the O? A communist-leaning dictatorship! Once O's tax-and-spend policies fail he is going to demand greater control of the economy and Congress is going to give it to him.
(http://www.septicisle.info/uploaded_images/soylent_green-749218.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
According to some of the "people" the national TV news shows (NBC, CBS, ABC) have interviewed, if Obama wins we will all be eating watermellon and "chitlins," wearing tap shoes, capping our front teeth gold, and praising Allah. The prejudice and ignorance still alive in this country in 2008 is incredible.
You forgot about worshiping Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Marx.
quote:
IMO, an Obama victory is eminent and the best thing that could happen to the U.S. at this time.
I agree. My Australian friend told me he couldn't believe we actually did it. The world likes us again. If the economy goes up, I'll be able to visit overseas without telling everyone I'm Canadian.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
We vs. Us, Obama was born in 1961. Baby Boomers were born from 1946 until 1964. Obama is a Boomer.
There are subgroups within the Boomer years. Older, Middle and Younger. And there is a dynamic that plays out between the Boomer Subgroups.
President-Elect Obama was born during an "overlap" between the Boomers and Gen X. Gen X is considered starting circa 1960. Generational demographics isn't an exact science, and the dates tend to overlap. I consider Obama a solid Xer, he speaks and thinks like a member of my generation.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
One implication that I welcome ...
The election drove a stake through the heart of the already-dubious notion of the Bradley Effect. Stick a fork in it; it's done. Near as I can tell, the polls and the actual results were pretty much the same and at least in the margin of error.
It's interesting that the exit polls were "off" in 2004 for the first time ever, and in 2008 they were once again correct.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Implications of the O? A communist-leaning dictatorship! Once O's tax-and-spend policies fail he is going to demand greater control of the economy and Congress is going to give it to him.
I'd rather see tax-and-spend policies than the borrow-and spend (and spend and spend and spend) policies of the failed Bush administration.
quote:
Originally posted by bugo
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
One implication that I welcome ...
The election drove a stake through the heart of the already-dubious notion of the Bradley Effect. Stick a fork in it; it's done. Near as I can tell, the polls and the actual results were pretty much the same and at least in the margin of error.
It's interesting that the exit polls were "off" in 2004 for the first time ever, and in 2008 they were once again correct.
The exit polls were weighed incorrectly in 2004. A number of experts noted this just hours after their release.
After all the heat they took, you know the exit pollsters were motivated to get it right this time.
The usual tracking polls -- Gallup, Rasmussen, SurveyUSA, etc. -- showed that Kerry didn't lead after mid-August. Bush won. So those polls were on the money, too.
The Bradley Effect was little more than a dubious theory. A Harvard researcher found that it didn't exist after the mid-1990s, if it existed at all. The complete lack of divergence in the polls and the actual election counts in 2008 show that the Bradley Effect is done, kaput.
Stock Market 101
Lets see. . . If I sell all of my stocks now I will have to give up 15% to the Government in capital gains.
If I wait until next year, under Obama's proposed plan, I'll have to give up more than 30%.
What do I do?
What is the world doing now?
Where is the money going?
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Stock Market 101
Lets see. . . If I sell all of my stocks now I will have to give up 15% to the Government in capital gains.
You've really held all your stock more than a year? You're a rare one these days, Gaspar.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Stock Market 101
Lets see. . . If I sell all of my stocks now I will have to give up 15% to the Government in capital gains.
You've really held all your stock more than a year? You're a rare one these days, Gaspar.
You really have gains to pay taxes on Gaspar? You are even rarer!
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Stock Market 101
Lets see. . . If I sell all of my stocks now I will have to give up 15% to the Government in capital gains.
You've really held all your stock more than a year? You're a rare one these days, Gaspar.
My daddy helped me buy my first shares of stock when I was 14 years old with money from my first job. 25 years later, and I still have many of them.
I've made very smart, and very stupid decisions since then, but I know of several stocks I need to sell, and can't justify waiting any longer when I know that if Obama follows through, it will take me years to recoup the gains from slow growth stocks (mostly utilities).
So now I need to figure out where to put the money? It's not a whole lot, and I have no intension of spending it yet. But any additional investment puts it back on the radar screen and I'm not ready to do that until I know how hard this administration is going to come down on personal investing and retirement.
I think we are seeing a lot of this happening in the market right now.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Stock Market 101
Lets see. . . If I sell all of my stocks now I will have to give up 15% to the Government in capital gains.
If I wait until next year, under Obama's proposed plan, I'll have to give up more than 30%.
What do I do?
What is the world doing now?
Where is the money going?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2008/08/what-would-pres.html
Obama details capital gains, dividend tax plans
8:41 PM, August 14, 2008
Sen. Barack Obama's campaign on Thursday spelled out the details of the Democratic presidential candidate's tax plan on his website and in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal.
I just wanted to note the basic proposals for capital gains and dividend tax rates here:
--- Families with incomes below $250,000 would pay current capital gains rates (a maximum tax of 15% on gains on assets held more than one year). Those earning more than $250,000 would face an increase -- a top rate of 20%.
--- The top dividend tax rate would remain the current 15% for those earning less than $250,000, but would rise to 20% for those earning above that threshold.
--- For single people, the tax increases above would apply to those earning more than $200,000.The presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, has endorsed keeping President Bush's current tax rates as they are.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Obama_talks_capgains_rate_with_CNBC.html
March 27, 2008
Categories: Barack Obama
Obama talks cap-gains rate with CNBC
BARTIROMO: "How do you plan to change the tax code when it comes to capital gains? How high will that 15 percent rate go?"
Sen. OBAMA: "Well, you know, I haven't given a firm number. Here's my belief, that we can't go back to some of the, you know, confiscatory rates that existed in the past that distorted sound economics. And I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was the 28 percent. I would--and my guess would be it would be significantly lower than that. I think that we can have a capital gains rate that is higher than 15 percent. If it--and if it, you know--when I talk to people like Warren Buffet or others and I ask them, you know, what's--how much of a difference is it going to be if it's 20 or 25 percent, they say, look, if it's within that range then it's not going to distort, I think, economic decision making. On the other hand, what it will also do is first of all help out the federal treasury, which is running a credit card up with the bank of China and other countries. What it will also do, I think, is allow us to make investments in basic scientific research, in infrastructure, in broadband lines, in green energy and will allow us to give us--give some relief to middle class and working class families who have been driving this economy as consumers but have been doing it through credit cards and home equity loans. They're not going to be able to do that. And if we want the economy to continue to go strong, then we've got to make sure that they're getting a little relief as well."
E-Mail I received. Yes, It's crap, but I would not be surprised that something like this will happen:
Fellow Business Executives:
As the CFO of this business that employees 140 people, I have resigned myself to the fact that Barrack Obama will be our next President, and that our taxes and government fees will increase in a BIG way.
To compensate for these increases, I figure that the Clients will have to see an increase in our fees to them of about 8% but since we cannot increase our fees
right now due to the dismal state of our economy, we will have to lay off six of our employees instead. This has really been eating at me for a while, as we
believe we are family here and I didn't know how to choose who will have to go.
So, this is what I did. I strolled thru our parking lot and found 8 Obama bumper stickers on our employees' cars and have decided these folks will be the first to be laid off. I can't think of a more fair way to approach this problem.
These folks wanted change; I gave it to them.
If you have a better idea, let me know.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
E-Mail I received. Yes, It's crap, but I would not be surprised that something like this will happen:
Fellow Business Executives:
As the CFO of this business that employees 140 people, I have resigned myself to the fact that Barrack Obama will be our next President, and that our taxes and government fees will increase in a BIG way.
To compensate for these increases, I figure that the Clients will have to see an increase in our fees to them of about 8% but since we cannot increase our fees
right now due to the dismal state of our economy, we will have to lay off six of our employees instead. This has really been eating at me for a while, as we
believe we are family here and I didn't know how to choose who will have to go.
So, this is what I did. I strolled thru our parking lot and found 8 Obama bumper stickers on our employees' cars and have decided these folks will be the first to be laid off. I can't think of a more fair way to approach this problem.
These folks wanted change; I gave it to them.
If you have a better idea, let me know.
Here's the plan. Go to the Change Party Headquarters, take the pledge, and sign up for one of the new numbered arm-bands, then start wearing it to work every day.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3025/3028225410_1ca5fe7281.jpg?v=0)
I doubt you'll be fired if they think you're a party member. [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
E-Mail I received. Yes, It's crap, but I would not be surprised that something like this will happen:
Fellow Business Executives:
As the CFO of this business that employees 140 people, I have resigned myself to the fact that Barrack Obama will be our next President, and that our taxes and government fees will increase in a BIG way.
To compensate for these increases, I figure that the Clients will have to see an increase in our fees to them of about 8% but since we cannot increase our fees
right now due to the dismal state of our economy, we will have to lay off six of our employees instead. This has really been eating at me for a while, as we
believe we are family here and I didn't know how to choose who will have to go.
So, this is what I did. I strolled thru our parking lot and found 8 Obama bumper stickers on our employees' cars and have decided these folks will be the first to be laid off. I can't think of a more fair way to approach this problem.
These folks wanted change; I gave it to them.
If you have a better idea, let me know.
Since this is a return to the tax rates of the Clinton administration, I suppose the same thing happened to folks with a Clinton/Gore bumper sticker....
"These folks wanted change; I gave it to them."--- reply:
"We voted for change. You obviously want a lawsuit... enjoy getting sued for crass political scapegoating, you anti-democracy jagoff."
Yeah, I heard that story after Carter was elected. Sour grapes can be used in so many different ways.
The most recent one I heard is about a Dentist in California who was so totally surprised that Obama won that he locked himself in his office for three days. When he came out he alerted his staff that since Obama won, there would be no Christmas bonuses and possible staff reductions. He also said he was planning to close the office and move to Mexico.
I don't remember so much drama when Reagan or the Bushes won. Even when Bush II was suspected of stealing the election. His opponents adjusted and went back to work planning for the next election. The paranoia seems to be increasing. Hannity says the Democrats are stealing three more senators!! He has no shame.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Here's the plan. Go to the Change Party Headquarters, take the pledge, and sign up for one of the new numbered arm-bands, then start wearing it to work every day.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3025/3028225410_1ca5fe7281.jpg?v=0)
I doubt you'll be fired if they think you're a party member. [;)]
How are things in your alternative universe, Gaspar?(http://tugrr.com/images/republican_jesus2.jpg)
(http://positiveblasphemy.blogspot.com/uploaded_images/repjesus86-718443.png)
(http://www.brendoman.com/media/corporate%20Jesus.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
E-Mail I received. Yes, It's crap, but I would not be surprised that something like this will happen:
Fellow Business Executives:
As the CFO of this business that employees 140 people, I have resigned myself to the fact that Barrack Obama will be our next President, and that our taxes and government fees will increase in a BIG way.
To compensate for these increases, I figure that the Clients will have to see an increase in our fees to them of about 8% but since we cannot increase our fees
right now due to the dismal state of our economy, we will have to lay off six of our employees instead. This has really been eating at me for a while, as we
believe we are family here and I didn't know how to choose who will have to go.
So, this is what I did. I strolled thru our parking lot and found 8 Obama bumper stickers on our employees' cars and have decided these folks will be the first to be laid off. I can't think of a more fair way to approach this problem.
These folks wanted change; I gave it to them.
If you have a better idea, let me know.
Since this is a return to the tax rates of the Clinton administration, I suppose the same thing happened to folks with a Clinton/Gore bumper sticker....
"These folks wanted change; I gave it to them."
--- reply: "We voted for change. You obviously want a lawsuit... enjoy getting sued for crass political scapegoating, you anti-democracy jagoff."
I lost my job (Actually, I was let go due to lack of business. I knew were my job had been but it was eliminated.) during the Clinton years (1994) and I didn't even vote for him.
I think Jesus looks good in a tie.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
I lost my job (Actually, I was let go due to lack of business. I knew were my job had been but it was eliminated.) during the Clinton years (1994) and I didn't even vote for him.
I'm not sure if Republicans really want to get into a discussion of job losses after the last 8 years... [:O]
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
I lost my job (Actually, I was let go due to lack of business. I knew were my job had been but it was eliminated.) during the Clinton years (1994) and I didn't even vote for him.
I'm not sure if Republicans really want to get into a discussion of job losses after the last 8 years... [:O]
Not all of the last 8 years have been horrible employment figures. Can't argue the last 6 to 12 months.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
Not all of the last 8 years have been horrible employment figures. Can't argue the last 6 to 12 months.
They've been essentially stagnant at best the entire time. It would have been much worse were it not for the increase in people eating out and doing other things that increase low wage employment, which is where most of the growth has been.
To be fair, it's not Bush's fault per se, it's a combination of factors including ridiculous monetary policy that's been in place since the 1980s.