The race for the US presidency

[Striker]

Damn the typical American voter is dumber than a door nob.

The last 8 years and your post are the clearest indication of that.

 

[Gilbo]

I predict that McCain will win, contrary to the polls, due to hacked voting machines. This is becoming clear to me now...





It's amazing the number of documented flaws in these machines. Who knows how many undocumented flaws there are?

 

[Fushigi]

Like as was exposed in Hacking Democracy? (FWIW, I will see Dr. Thompson speak next week)

My wife & I voted early this past Sunday. While the Diebold touch screen was easy to use & generated a human-readable paper receipt (internally stored), it does little to provide confidence in the back end tabulation system.

 

[P5-133XL]

I really like Oregons Vote-by-mail setup. Paper-trail everywhere. Computer counted via scanners: Basicly equivilent to a multi-choice test where you fill in the circles. Much cheaper elections. very little fraud: Everyone must sign the envelope containing the ballot and it is computer compared to what is on record; if it doesn't match, it is hand checked and if it still does not match, the voter has to come in and verify before the ballot is counted. I just don't see the negative.

 

[P5-133XL]

P.S. Oregon just began running facial-recognition software for all driver license renewals to help eliminate creating false ID's. According to the DMV (dept of motor vehicals) that one thing adds around $4.5 cost per renewal.

 

[Fushigi]

The negative is that you no longer have a private vote.

 

[P5-133XL]

No, it is totally private, assuming the election officials are not sneaking an unauthorized peak. There are two envelopes one on the outside listing your name, address, signiture ect. The one on the inside contains the ballot with no indication as to who you are. That way, they can do all their checks and if it all works out, only then is the inside envelope used...

 

[P5-133XL]

Theoretically, if the elections officials were of the stuffing type, they could print up a lot of ballots, but then the number of inside and outside envelopes would not match and that would flag a big time problem.

 

[P5-133XL]

An interesting note, is that the last time I checked, only 31% had returned their ballots which is 9% lower than the last pres. election at the same time. They did some analysis and it appears that the decrease is only from counties that predominately voted Bush last time (with an exception from Gordon Smiths home county (our republican senator)). The Republicans really need to be pushing harder to get their vote out.

No, they won't actually release the results of the ballot counting till the appropiate time. This is just how many people have returned their ballots.

 

[Fushigi]

No, it is totally private, assuming the election officials are not sneaking an unauthorized peak.

I would never make such an assumption.

 

[P5-133XL]

I would never make such an assumption.

I try to run my life such that even if they did, it wouldn't matter.

 

[udaman]

Here's the problems with reverting to the old rates:
When all is said and done the Iraq war and the bailout will probably cost in excess of $2 trillion. We could have had a first class high-speed rail system for that, and it would have been something the average taxpayer might actually greatly benefit from (plus it would have more than paid for itself in terms of less pollution, no more need to fight wars for oil, etc.) And the $10 trillion "war on poverty". Poverty rates are higher than they were before it started. The primary beneficiaries have been social service providers, not the poor. And making taxpayers pay for these programs, most of which they'll never be eligible for, is tyranny of the worst kind. No, cut spending, not raise taxes.

Hmm, did a search on jtr & "high-speed"...holy s**t!

Hate to tell you this jtr, you're as naive as anyone I've ever seen when it comes to government spending, and corruption/cost over-runs. Costs a billion per mile of freeway. No way you'd get even close to that, even budget class, lol. You sound like Obama & Gore...nice rhetoric, little factual reality there...more like Steve Jobs reality distortion.

Want to reduce air pollution, then we need alternate energy generation sources. Auto air pollution? go electric. You will not *ever* have, a society that embraces 100 or even close to 75% high-speed rail. It simply doesn't serve enough utility, except for the reality distortion types like yourself, who are selfish, and short-sighted when you promote such transportation systems. If you ever become elderly, you might then understand. Since you never want to have a family/children, you're also selfish in your denial of others wants and needs, wish to impose your own wants and desires on others...ain't going to happen!

SAFE, RELIABLE HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN BOND ACT.


http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/title-sum/prop1a-title-sum.htm

^^^analysis must have been done by someone like jtr, who is in denial and blinded by fervor of optimism.

LA County has a prop for raising sales tax 1/2 cent to provide a broad range of transportation infrastructure improvements, with the least likely to ever materialize, expanded rail (because there is no oversight as to what projects get funded via this general 1/2 cent tax). Then we have the major and city council imposing both property tax and substantail trash collection fee (tax) increases...to improve or provide for better trash collection you ask? F'k NO, to force an unwanted tax on property owners to increase the number of police on the force, because voters won't approve of a direct tax to increase police force.

When there was the state budget crisis, longest budget stalemate in history, there was a proposal to increase state sales tax to fund the budget shortfall....you know, so we can have $14+/hr *temporary* part-time DMV employees. Man, the DMV employee's aren't anymore competent than your minimum wage fast food employee. Fire all the overpaid, incompetent government employee's you'd probably have enough to build that minimal impact, supplemental rail system. I would use it, once in a while, when it's more convenient...which wouldn't be nearly as often as jtr thinks.

10 Trillion would be enough to do high-speed rail (substandard) in San Fransciso & Los Angeles *only*...the rest of the major cities in this country, lol...is there a "Giga" dollars in the budget?

 

[jtr1962]

The figures per mile are closer to $30 million than $1 billion. See here. Admittedly, they're much higher when building in dense urban areas, but that's only a small portion of the run. I'd say offhand the US needs about 50,000 miles of HSR to provide a comprehensive national network. That comes to around $1.5 trillion, spread over perhaps 10 years. $150 billion per year isn't going to bankrupt us, and you'll probably save that much from fewer car accidents and cancer deaths. Funny how we can find sums like this to fight wars for oil or bail out banks, but not for something which most people can actually use. And I'm not saying HSR negates the need for cars in most of the country, but it should negate the need to drive long distances. If no convenient public transit option exists at your destination, you just rent an EV to drive those last miles.

Longer term we really do need to make owning an auto less of a necessity regardless of whether they're EVs or not. This is especially true in large cities where other options to get around often exist. NYC with a few more subways in the outer boroughs could pretty much ban private auto use and not greatly inconvenience people. As it is 50% here don't have driver's licenses.

The main problem with HSR isn't cost or viability. It's finding the political will to get it built. Too much of the country has a built-in animus towards public transit of any kind, often associating it with socialism or communism. Hopefully with continued high fuel prices (forget the recent price drop, fuel prices are still up long term), and ever more congested roads people will realize autos are not the panacea they seemed to be 50 years ago. Besides, we can't even afford to maintain heavily used roads in cities (at least judging by the poor condition of most local roads here). We certainly can't afford to maintain thousands of miles of highway in low density areas. That bridge collapsing last year was only the start. With large amounts of freight shifting from long distance trucks to rail, one of the main raisons d'etre of the Interstate Highway System is disappearing, taking with it much of the maintenance funds. If we don't build HSR soon, we may have no viable long distance transport for the masses. Autos will be useless without highways to run them on. Air will be unaffordable for all but the wealthy as fuel prices continue to rise. Not a pretty picture. The failure of the US to build HSR may well go down in history as the ultimate reason for its collapse.

Of course, none of this may matter after today if the polls are right. Soon it will be the USSA, not the USA, tightly controlled by the Obama youth.

 

[mubs]

History has been made. I am glad it turned out this way. Change was badly needed.

 

[jtr1962]

I hate to say this but in a way I think this is the best possibly outcome. The last bit of ammunition about blacks still suffering the effects of slavery is gone forever with the election of our first black President. Granted, he's only half black but in the minds of most that's good enough. I honestly think things might have gotten really ugly had he lost. Hopefully now Congress will keep him from passing the worst parts of his agenda while passing the better parts. We certainly need to rebuild the infrastructure in the US and get the heck off fossil fuels for starters. I give an Obama presidency a better chance of making that happen.

I highly doubt anything will radically change for the better regardless of who's in office. IMO it's going to take a revolution in the conventional sense to accomplish that. And things will have to get much worse before the American people are willing to shed blood to change their government. I honestly feel we will see a bloody revolution in my lifetime, but now's not the time.

On a lighter note, Michelle Obama is from my graduating class. Maybe I should try for a position in the Obama administration.

 

[udaman]

Well now, Obama and the Dem's have control over both Congress and the presidency. So right, all USA's ills will now be solved, correct ?

I'll let jtr stay up all night to read the nail bitter results on the high-speed rail initiative (looks like the No's are in the lead, but it's too close to call).

I think the LATimes story about how it could cost $90Bil over however many decades it would take, is probably too conservative.

http://elections.cbslocal.com/cbs/kcbs/20081104/race101.shtml


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/la-me-stateprops19-2008oct19,0,2980439,full.story

Main arguments in favor: Electric-powered bullet trains between major population centers would ease traffic and airport congestion, help curb air pollution and reduce dependence on foreign oil. Nearly $1 billion would be spent to beef up commuter rail systems feeding the high-speed trains.

Main arguments against: It could cost $90 billion or more while failing to achieve projected speeds, trip times or ridership. It would deepen state's fiscal hole; money would better serve law enforcement, healthcare, education and an upgrade of existing rail and highway systems.

Still I'm surprised how close the race is. All other poorly designed energy initiatives are failing by significant margins...good. Let's look at other public works transportation projects...shall we.

Boston's Big Dig...soon to be overtaken in cost overruns by:

Eastern span replacement of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge


http://www.answers.com/topic/eastern-span-replacement-of-the-san-francisco-oakland-bay-bridge

Which may be overtaken by yet another project:

I-5 bridge estimate jumps to $6 billion

Even at low end of projected range, fixes likely to set a record



http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=117158186891743800




Argh, the 1/2 cent sales tax increase was passed in LA County, we're already at 8.25%.

Don't you dare remind me jtr, of this date 2yrs ago. Bad memories like her need to die (err, I don't mean she needs to die, just to be clear).

 

[Stereodude]

I hate to say this but in a way I think this is the best possibly outcome. The last bit of ammunition about blacks still suffering the effects of slavery is gone forever with the election of our first black President. Granted, he's only half black but in the minds of most that's good enough.

You're fooling yourself if you believe that. Anyone who criticizes him will instantly be branded a racist regardless of how legitimate the complaint is. The race industry will not go into the night quietly.

IMHO, you're also delusional if you think Congress will stop him from going full tilt to the left since they want to go full tilt to the left also.

It won't be long before people like this have a bad case of buyer's remorse.

 

[RWIndiana]

I have already heard on the news a black leader saying that this does NOT mean America is not still fundamentally racist . . . Already they are trying to make black people the victims and keep them that way. Liberals do not want racism to end. Ever. That is one of their means of building themselves up and they will keep it that way. Even now that they are in power they will blame everything on those racist conservatives. Don't doubt it. So who are the real racists?

 

[RWIndiana]

I honestly feel we will see a bloody revolution in my lifetime, but now's not the time.

I truly hope you are right. While liberals and Democrats have blatantly aimed for bigger, more controlling government, so-called "conservatives" and Republicans have done exactly the same, only hiding it a little better. It is time our government is pulled down. But how will that succeed when over half of the country has voted for Obama? How in the world do we educate all the dyslexic lemmings? Perhaps getting rid of television (and most other forms of entertainment) would be a good start.

 

[Stereodude]

But how will that succeed when over half of the country has voted for Obama?

Simple, this election was just a big episode of American Idol. Most of his voters are too apathetic to fight either way. Most revolutions are fought by a vocal minority.

 

[Striker]

Or maybe people are just tired of the huge deficit, the neverending war and no end in sight if the Republican's stayed in charge.
You can claim that Obama was voted in because it was a popularity contest similar to American Idol but how do you explain so many Congress seats transferring to Democrats?

Somehow I wasn't surprised to come in here today and see sour grapes from the usual suspects.

 

[udaman]

Presidential race went along expected state lines. Mostly conservative middle American Republican states went for McCain. The Democratic party leaning West Coast and New England/East coast (most populated big cities) went for Obama. No real surprise.

Dem's have even more control, so all failures in the future can be blamed on them, correct Merc? .

Dem's, or should I say biatches from Calif. Pelosi & Feinstein, lobbied for the Calif Prop 1A high-speed rail initiative...which won approval, by popular vote, just like the Presidency, from SF and LA area populations. By and large, outlying counties, who will see little or no benefit, voted against it.

All the pro Prop1A advocates like Pelosi & Feinstein eco that familiar theme, masses of new jobs in a badly needed economy (sure, let's see just how much difference it will make over time, I predict little), reduction of dependency on foreigh oil. :biglaugh: no way that's going to happen merely by having a No. Cal to So. Cal interconnect, anyone claiming such is delusional and disingenuous as to actual traffic patterns/usages which said high-speed rail project with have at very best limited impact over.

Reduce population growth if you want to reduce oil dependency, and switch to alternative power sources. Like the Mexicans in this state are going to stop having babies? Get real.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...x?guid={24B29CD7-573A-48D0-A6CA-2C282C298F82}

As chairman of the High-Speed Rail Authority, I pledge to honor the spirit of those who established our state's pioneering transportation system, by working to build a first-in-the-nation high-speed train system to benefit future generations.
This effort will improve our once-matchless transportation systems in California by delivering a high-speed train system that will cost two to three times less than expanding freeways and airports to accommodate millions of new Californians by 2030.
A reliable 220-mile-per-hour electric high-speed train system will reduce our dependence on foreign oil by more than 12 million barrels per year and reduce greenhouse gases that cause global warming by 12.7 billion pounds annually. In short, we seek to reduce traffic congestion, protect our environment and give energy and life to our economy to the tune of 450,000 new jobs.

Mark my words (assuming all of you are still alive in 2030, by then I could be dead from cancer, or some other old age causes), by 2030, this project will still be at best partially completed, will likely hit 1 Trillion dollars in cost overruns. And worst of all, be of far less limited value as is now being claimed for transportation needs.

I"m not going downtown to LA's cesspool to catch that train, get mugged or robbed, after having to take other slow public transportation in a driving rain, trying to tug along suitcases/baggage. Nah, I'll just drive to SF and back to LA, no wait for public transportation, leave and move freely on *my* own personal schedule, going to places, restaurants, etc. I need to get to that would take additional hours if not days, had I all that *time* to waste spending even more money on finding public transportation that is inconvenient to get me there, when I want and need to get here or there.

You might get away with that in NYC proper, but you're still limited in options even in NYC. I'll take a car almost everytime, even with additional cost of insurance, maintenance, stress of dealing with all the other idiot/bad drivers out there (where's that space-based laser weapon I need to 'zap' those bad drivers out of existence? ).

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/2008/10/a-big-pitch-for.html

Feinstein also waxed nostalgic. The Democrat senator recalled riding Japan’s bullet train back in the 1960s while on her honeymoon. “We traveled 341 miles in roughly three hours with no lines, no hassles, train on time,” she said. “I will never forget it.”

Some logical rational from the "against" Prop 1A, in the blog comments above^^^

Friggin idiot Feinstein (who's filthy rich too, btw); she should go back to Japan now and actually work there on a daily basis, you don't build a multi-billion dollar rail system for tourist or honeymooners. Go ask anyone in Shanghai (except jtr's Chinese clone ), what they'd rather have if both were an available option; free pass on the high-speed rail system there, and be prohibited from ever using a car; or a Ferrari/luxury car, but forego ever having access to public transportation.

At any rate, Japanese culture is entirely different from the mean streets of urban downtown LA. You won't see Feinstein, riding the public transportation in the rain in dwtwn LA anytime soon on a regular daily basis, just "photo ops". No, it's chauffeur driven luxury cars for her.

 

[Fushigi]

I have already heard on the news a black leader saying that this does NOT mean America is not still fundamentally racist . . .

Which would be correct. I personally know people who would have voted Democrat but didn't due to Obama's "tan".

Liberals do not want racism to end. Ever.

Right, that's why folks like Jessie Jackson were opening weeping with joy last night.

 

[Stereodude]

Right, that's why folks like Jessie Jackson were opening weeping with joy last night.

Jessie was weeping because is wasn't him and he wasn't on the stage.

 

[Stereodude]

You can claim that Obama was voted in because it was a popularity contest similar to American Idol but how do you explain so many Congress seats transferring to Democrats?

Uh... because people like to vote straight tickets. The Senate and the House usually follow the presidential ballot.

 

[Striker]

You're right, it has nothing to do with people being sick of the past administration.
The Republican's have run a perfect administration the past 8 years, I can't believe they didn't win just because the Democrat was more charismatic.

 

[Stereodude]

You're right, it has nothing to do with people being sick of the past administration.
The Republican's have run a perfect administration the past 8 years, I can't believe they didn't win just because the Democrat was more charismatic.

I never said that... IMHO, John McCain was the worst possible candidate the Republicans could have run. The current administration as not done a perfect job. They're screwed up a lot of things. It just hasn't been a complete and utter failure in every possible aspect like the media portrays it to be. My opinion was and still is that Obama would be a worse president than John McCain.

We had two choices. Bad and terrible. We will see how it all plays out shortly...

 

[Striker]

I'm curious why you think McCain was a bad choice? I thought he was a good choice; they muffed it up when they added Palin to the ticket.

 

[Stereodude]

I'm curious why you think McCain was a bad choice? I thought he was a good choice; they muffed it up when they added Palin to the ticket.

Cause he's a moderate. The whole theory was for him to appeal to moderate democrats and independents bringing them into the fold allowing him to win without energizing the conservative base. Clearly it didn't work.

IMHO, Palin kept him from getting completely blown out by exciting the base some. Look at the crowds she drew...

 

[RWIndiana]

McCain was rotten, in my opinion. The absolute worst possible choice. The Republicans have demonstrated that they are the architects of failure. Picking a nominal Republican who may as well be a Democrat is not the way to win elections. If it weren't for Palin, I'm pretty sure a few more states would have been blue, as inexperienced in the public spotlight as she is (or was). I would have been ready to pull the lever for Obama myself if it hadn't been for her.

Few (less than 30% of McCain voters) were voting for McCain. Most were voting against Obama. Again, not a way to win elections. Contrast that with the more than 50% who claimed they were excited to vote for Obama. Palin, on the other hand, was someone I and many others in the conservative base were excited about (not to mention wishing the ticket could be flipped). Because she's a real person, not just a symbol. I don't think she's as smart as Obama, but then most of us aren't as smart as Hitler was either. I believe her values are much better than his.

Personally, I did not want McCain because he wanted to raise my taxes and increase government spending and intrusion into my life as well. I'm sick of fiscal liberals like Bush and McCain masquerading as conservatives. Sorry if that sounds disrespectful, it's not intended.

I plan to support president-elect Obama 100% when it does not violate my values and principles. I will be one of the first to sing his praises when he does something well. I truly hope he will be a good president. May God bless him.

 

[ddrueding]

The #1 thing I want in a president is for them to be smart. Issues will come up during the course of a term that weren't anticipated during the election (9/11, anyone?). I need to know that the smartest person with the smartest advisers is in charge. The differences between liberal and conservative are not nearly as broad as the gap between smart and stupid.

Furthermore, I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal; is this really that unusual a position to be lacking representation? I get to choose between being taxed to death or losing countless personal freedoms; and to be honest either party could fall on both sides of that coin at the moment.

 

[Howell]

I don't care what you say, this is funny.

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_win_causes_obsessive

 

[Howell]

Palin is a self assured clown. She is a distraction. You could have paired her up with Ronnie for his first election and he would have lost.

 

[ddrueding]

I don't care what you say, this is funny.

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_win_causes_obsessive

That is indeed very funny. On the talk shows this morning it reflected the reality of that. So many people were calling in saying that they had worked for his campaign and were now "willing to serve" if only he would give the order....damn.

 

[jtr1962]

Furthermore, I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal; is this really that unusual a position to be lacking representation? I get to choose between being taxed to death or losing countless personal freedoms; and to be honest either party could fall on both sides of that coin at the moment.

Vote libertarian. Libertarians basically won't interfere in either social or financial issues. My favorite part of their platform is getting rid of the income tax. I sincerely hope the GOP adopts that as part of their platform. I think if they had it would have put them over the top this election.

Regarding Palin-she energized the religious right of the Republican party, that's for sure. But for the rest, she was probably a negative. In fact, until the Republicans ditch the religious right they hold little hope of winning nationally again. Many who traditionally vote Republican want low taxes, and as little interference from government as practical in both personal and business matters. The religious right seeks to make many aspects of the gospel the law of the land. I don't care what religion my leaders have, but that religion has no place in affairs of state. I've no more wish to live under the theocracy of the religous right than I do under the communes of the far left.

As for Obama, I fear his followers more than I do him. It seems in the 11th hour he moderated his views on taxes/social issues somewhat. Good for us if he sticks to his guns, even at the risk of alienating the far left in his own party. You can't effectively govern via politics of the extreme. That applies to both left and right.

 

[Stereodude]

Vote libertarian. Libertarians basically won't interfere in either social or financial issues. My favorite part of their platform is getting rid of the income tax. I sincerely hope the GOP adopts that as part of their platform. I think if they had it would have put them over the top this election.

Voting libertarian, or any 3rd party is akin to throwing your vote away with the electoral college system in the US.

In fact, until the Republicans ditch the religious right they hold little hope of winning nationally again. Many who traditionally vote Republican want low taxes, and as little interference from government as practical in both personal and business matters.

I don't agree. If the Republicans want to win they need to run as conservatives, not as moderates trying to out liberal the democrats.

As for Obama, I fear his followers more than I do him. It seems in the 11th hour he moderated his views on taxes/social issues somewhat. Good for us if he sticks to his guns, even at the risk of alienating the far left in his own party. You can't effectively govern via politics of the extreme. That applies to both left and right.

Obama is a full blown lefty. Don't be fooled by the smooth campaign. He was the most liberal person in the Senate. They are going to go HARD left, not run from the center!

They're already ready to take over your 401k. link 2 link 1

 

[Fushigi]

Do you have anything that says Obama's administration, which has yet to be anywhere near fully fleshed out, will seriously consider Ghilarducci's idea? With your citations, it's just one of possibly many possibilities and there's nothing substantiating it as being the favored direction.

Re: Voting libertarian or any other party while the electoral college exists, I mostly agree. Voting outside the two dominant parties is basically making a statement about discontent with those parties; it does nothing significant towards choosing a leader. Except, perhaps, eliminating one's capacity for being a potential deciding swing vote.

 

[Mercutio]

Voting libertarian, or any 3rd party is akin to throwing your vote away with the electoral college system in the US.

Only if no one else does. Remember the Reform party? I know that it was backed by Perot's billions when he was running, but it had a real, larger, more effective apparatus than the Libertarians, Greens or US Constitution Party, all of which have been around for decades with nothing to show for it. People who liked the idea of fiscal conservatism and fairly neutral stances on social issue had a place to go then, and they did well enough to win a governorship and to receive federal funding in 2000.

I don't agree. If the Republicans want to win they need to run as conservatives, not as moderates trying to out liberal the democrats.

What the Reps can take from 2008 is that appealing to fundies at the expense of moderates can carry an enormous cost. Fiscal conservatism usually does play well with many Americans, but it doesn't get the bible thumpers that the Reps have needed to win elections for the last few cycles excited. If they make a play for the social conservatives, they become less appealing to the vast middle of the political spectrum. My overall impression is that by moving ever rightward, all the Republicans are doing is alienating the middle. Were I at all interested in the health of the party, I would suggest to Republicans that they get a divorce from the bible thumpers and neoconservative ideologues (the guys who like borrowing and cutting taxes at the same time as running two wars) and attempt to build from the basic corporate-friendly/limited role of government party they once were.

That would at least be less stomach-churning to most of America.

Obama is a full blown lefty. Don't be fooled by the smooth campaign. He was the most liberal person in the Senate. They are going to go HARD left, not run from the center!

No, they aren't. They can't govern that way. I'm absolutely positive that if you interviewed most of the politicians in Washington about their personal political beliefs, you would find the overwhelming majority of them have viewpoints that could be described as extreme on one side or the other. Their personal views are tempered and compromised by lobbying, the interest in future electability and pressures from the party caucus to seek middle ground so that compromises can be reached in lawmaking (the "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" that is the way things get done in Washington)

Obama had rather less of that than many Senators. He was in his first term as a Senator and he seems to have had less contact with lobbyists than more senior congressmen (less, not none). He was able to stay closer to his ideals than most longer-serving Senators, particularly given his position as a rising star in the party.

Regardless, now he will need to move to the center, or nothing will get done. Carter, Clinton post-1994 and Shrub post-2006 show what happens if Congress won't play ball with the President. Yes, Congress will be dominated by members of the Democratic Party, but there's A LOT of power in that Republican filibuster; they CAN stop the government from getting anything accomplished if they feel like they aren't getting their way. This is, in fact, exactly what they've been doing for the last two years.

Also, for what it's worth, by any nation other than the US's standards, the Democrats would be a middle-right party, while the Reps are a hard right party. There are no politically effective leftists in US politics. Bill Clinton, the great liberal demon to AM Talk Radio, essentially governed as a center-right politician: fiscally conservative, free trading and cutting (yes, cutting) many social programs.

 

[Stereodude]

Do you have anything that says Obama's administration, which has yet to be anywhere near fully fleshed out, will seriously consider Ghilarducci's idea? With your citations, it's just one of possibly many possibilities and there's nothing substantiating it as being the favored direction.

Not yet. We'll have to wait and see. I'm concerned enough that it's even being suggested. Are they going to come for our property rights next?

 

[Stereodude]

Only if no one else does. Remember the Reform party? I know that it was backed by Perot's billions when he was running, but it had a real, larger, more effective apparatus than the Libertarians, Greens or US Constitution Party, all of which have been around for decades with nothing to show for it. People who liked the idea of fiscal conservatism and fairly neutral stances on social issue had a place to go then, and they did well enough to win a governorship and to receive federal funding in 2000.

I don't agree. The only thing voting 3rd party does is give the Democrats an easy victory. The core of the Democrats power are the people who will never vote for another party because they are dependent on the current Democrats for their free handouts. That would be the 35-40% of people who don't pay taxes due either getting 100% or greater refund of their federal taxes. Those people will never never bite the hand that feeds them. The Democrat are well on their way towards increasing that percentage to over 50% so they never ever lose power ever again.

Here's a quote that pretty well sums up the situation...

The America of my time line is a laboratory example of what can happen to democracies, what has eventually happened to all perfect democracies throughout all histories. A perfect democracy, a "warm body" democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction.... [O]nce a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader — the barbarians enter Rome.

What the Reps can take from 2008 is that appealing to fundies at the expense of moderates can carry an enormous cost. Fiscal conservatism usually does play well with many Americans, but it doesn't get the bible thumpers that the Reps have needed to win elections for the last few cycles excited. If they make a play for the social conservatives, they become less appealing to the vast middle of the political spectrum. My overall impression is that by moving ever rightward, all the Republicans are doing is alienating the middle.

I must have missed it. Where was fiscal conservatism on the ballot? McCain isn't a fiscal conservative. Ok, so he was anti-pork, but he voted for the 700 Billion dollar bailout and against Bush's tax cuts. He wrote McCain-Feingold a terrible piece of non fiscal conservative legislation. The list goes on and on. The Republicans ran a moderate Democrat who couldn't contrast himself again the democrat candidate because he supported all the same things and those are things that the bulk of the Republican base doesn't support.