Will the election matter?

The election cost $5.8 billion and years of furor and trauma, only to leave us with what we had already:  President Obama, a Democratic Senate, and a Republican House of Representatives.  Does that mean we’ll have another four years of the status quo, that the election won’t really mean anything?  I don’t think so.

As President Obama told the Russians, after he has won re-election, he will have much more “flexibility.”  That is to say, he won’t have to worry about alienating voters, so he will be free to do more of what he wants.  Conversely, Republicans won’t have as their priority, as Mitch McDonnell said, ensuring that he does not get elected to a second term.  So expect, for better or worse, more co-operation between the parties.  Already some Republican leaders in the House have said that if Obama gets re-elected, they will consider that Americans support his economic program and want more taxes; therefore, they will be willing to compromise on “raising revenues.”  So expect taxes to go up.

Also, the election clears the way for Obamacare.  If that health care program falls short of taking over the entire medical sector, it at least is a government take over of the medical insurance industry, which amounts to much the same thing.  To this day, no one knows what Obamacare will do, as it’s gradually implemented through 2014.  Already there are hints that at least some businesses will keep their number of employees below 50 and hire workers part-time rather than full-time to escape the required insurance expenses.  What procedures will be paid for and how much will be paid will be up to government regulators.  Church ministries and pro-lifers may well be forced to pay for contraceptives and abortifacient drugs, a direct assault on religious liberty that the administration is unlikely to compromise on, given the success of its “war on women” rhetoric during the election.  Perhaps a court will block that and other provisions, but we can’t count on it.

The popular vote was close, but the size of Obama’s electoral victory (300+ to 200, three-fifths, 60%) will allow Democrats to claim a mandate.  Americans voted for the Democratic proposals, so that’s what we all are going to get.

Can you think of other likely results of this election?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Eric Brown

    I am wondering how this will impact the Republican Party and their internal procedures. In the past 24 years, twice the Democrats have put forth young, Charismatic candidates for president, and both are two termers. I think you might get a shift in the higher ups in terms of what constitutes a good candidate.

    I’m also wondering which party will be the first to embrace increasing immigration quotas. You raise the number of folks who can come in legally, and very quickly you become the heroic party to the Latino community. A Republican ticket with Rubio and a “Let’s get more hard workers here who want to be Americans” could be very interesting — but I don’t think it will happen.

  • Eric Brown

    I am wondering how this will impact the Republican Party and their internal procedures. In the past 24 years, twice the Democrats have put forth young, Charismatic candidates for president, and both are two termers. I think you might get a shift in the higher ups in terms of what constitutes a good candidate.

    I’m also wondering which party will be the first to embrace increasing immigration quotas. You raise the number of folks who can come in legally, and very quickly you become the heroic party to the Latino community. A Republican ticket with Rubio and a “Let’s get more hard workers here who want to be Americans” could be very interesting — but I don’t think it will happen.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    Are you kidding?

    It matters a great deal. Our safety will be in jeopardy. Our enemies (who were rooting for Obama) will be emboldened. The govt. union thugs who want big retirement benefits will be emboldened. Those that favor open borders (to get more future Democratic voters ,will be emboldened. The eco-nuts who want all our utility bills raised and our taxes raised (to fight “global warming”, will be emboldened. Those who desire (like Michelle Obama and Mayor Bloomberg) to tell us what we should eat and when, will be emboldened. The leftwing sex nuts and homo advocates will clamp down harder on traditional institutions and dictate to churches what they can and cannot do and say regarding same sex issues. I could go on and on.

    Nah…it didn’t matter at all.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    Are you kidding?

    It matters a great deal. Our safety will be in jeopardy. Our enemies (who were rooting for Obama) will be emboldened. The govt. union thugs who want big retirement benefits will be emboldened. Those that favor open borders (to get more future Democratic voters ,will be emboldened. The eco-nuts who want all our utility bills raised and our taxes raised (to fight “global warming”, will be emboldened. Those who desire (like Michelle Obama and Mayor Bloomberg) to tell us what we should eat and when, will be emboldened. The leftwing sex nuts and homo advocates will clamp down harder on traditional institutions and dictate to churches what they can and cannot do and say regarding same sex issues. I could go on and on.

    Nah…it didn’t matter at all.

  • Dave

    It is certain that Iran will gain nuclear weapons .

  • Dave

    It is certain that Iran will gain nuclear weapons .

  • BW

    Iran and Pakistan were both not excited about Obama winning. Pakistan is not looking forward to more drones in its skies, and Iran isn’t happy about the increased sanctions they received with Obama. Their economy is in hyperinflation mode as it is. ‘Course, no matter who won, I don’t think Iran would’ve been excited either way.

    I still think Obamacare may collapse due to the legal challenges and issues in getting it set up in all the states. I do think the Republicans will do some soul searching for the next elections.

  • BW

    Iran and Pakistan were both not excited about Obama winning. Pakistan is not looking forward to more drones in its skies, and Iran isn’t happy about the increased sanctions they received with Obama. Their economy is in hyperinflation mode as it is. ‘Course, no matter who won, I don’t think Iran would’ve been excited either way.

    I still think Obamacare may collapse due to the legal challenges and issues in getting it set up in all the states. I do think the Republicans will do some soul searching for the next elections.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    I would hope that the church has the biblical fortitude to refuse to pay for contraceptives and abortion-related items.

    While I wouldn’t compare what we’re going through to the hostility toward Christians in places such as Islam dominated nations, we’d better wake up to the fact that this country is fast becoming less and less Christian-friendly. The words of St. John in his first epistle, 2:15, ring clearer than ever now: Do not love the world, or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    I would hope that the church has the biblical fortitude to refuse to pay for contraceptives and abortion-related items.

    While I wouldn’t compare what we’re going through to the hostility toward Christians in places such as Islam dominated nations, we’d better wake up to the fact that this country is fast becoming less and less Christian-friendly. The words of St. John in his first epistle, 2:15, ring clearer than ever now: Do not love the world, or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

  • Joe

    There is no mandate for Obama. He won a very narrow victory by doing a much better job of turning out his core base. He did not win over GOPers to his camp, he did not score big among independents. He ran to the left to shore up his base and simply out worked Romney to get his base to the polls. Romney’s GOTV failed to get out about 7 million of his core constituency (middle aged white guys).

    Boehner and McConnell have both already said there will be no tax increases (they are willing to generate new revenue by flattening the code and eliminating deductions, which would lead to some paying more taxes but would also lower rates to stimulate actual growth). And, 10 Governors have already said they are not going to set up the Obamacare exchanges.

    If you are looking for compromise – don’t hold your breath.

  • Joe

    There is no mandate for Obama. He won a very narrow victory by doing a much better job of turning out his core base. He did not win over GOPers to his camp, he did not score big among independents. He ran to the left to shore up his base and simply out worked Romney to get his base to the polls. Romney’s GOTV failed to get out about 7 million of his core constituency (middle aged white guys).

    Boehner and McConnell have both already said there will be no tax increases (they are willing to generate new revenue by flattening the code and eliminating deductions, which would lead to some paying more taxes but would also lower rates to stimulate actual growth). And, 10 Governors have already said they are not going to set up the Obamacare exchanges.

    If you are looking for compromise – don’t hold your breath.

  • Carl Vehse

    America, and not just Congress, will become more divisive as religious / political / philosophical differences become separated by a widening chasm, and the previous “bandaid” approaches to solving (or covering up)government problems simply won’t work anymore.

    While not geographically similar, the split is analogous to the abolitionist / slavery division in 1860. There came to be no “middle ground” — no politically moderating position one could take that would allow some support to both sides.

    Abortion is one of the lead issues this time, but just like last time, there were other issues, interrelated, some subtle. Over the last fifty years, the issues have been selected, refined, and tempered into hardened positions by both sides.

    Similar kinds of divisions in our country have occurred before, prior to WWI and WWII, when isolationists and interventionists clashed, but came together when the country was attacked and we officially declared war. But in the last sixty years, U.S. military actions have not had Congressional declarations of war that unified the country. The bandaids of UN police actions or the War Powers Act never really stuck to the American skin and helped heal the division.

    Of interest to Lutherans is how the leadership of the Missouri Synod is reacting to this widening chasm, especially since its clergy, churches, and schools are affected, just as the leadership, clergy, churches, and schools of the Missouri Synod were affected by the chasm, and the resulting clash, in the 19th century.

  • Carl Vehse

    America, and not just Congress, will become more divisive as religious / political / philosophical differences become separated by a widening chasm, and the previous “bandaid” approaches to solving (or covering up)government problems simply won’t work anymore.

    While not geographically similar, the split is analogous to the abolitionist / slavery division in 1860. There came to be no “middle ground” — no politically moderating position one could take that would allow some support to both sides.

    Abortion is one of the lead issues this time, but just like last time, there were other issues, interrelated, some subtle. Over the last fifty years, the issues have been selected, refined, and tempered into hardened positions by both sides.

    Similar kinds of divisions in our country have occurred before, prior to WWI and WWII, when isolationists and interventionists clashed, but came together when the country was attacked and we officially declared war. But in the last sixty years, U.S. military actions have not had Congressional declarations of war that unified the country. The bandaids of UN police actions or the War Powers Act never really stuck to the American skin and helped heal the division.

    Of interest to Lutherans is how the leadership of the Missouri Synod is reacting to this widening chasm, especially since its clergy, churches, and schools are affected, just as the leadership, clergy, churches, and schools of the Missouri Synod were affected by the chasm, and the resulting clash, in the 19th century.

  • Mary

    We can already see a “pruning” happening in the Church. If our government makes it harder to be a confessing Christian or for Christians to practice not just worship as we believe, I think the pruning will be even heavier. I think our pews are still filled with people who have a marginal faith. The parable of the sower is coming to pass. The rocky soil and thorns are crowding in.
    I pray that the LORD will keep me steadfast in the faith.

  • Mary

    We can already see a “pruning” happening in the Church. If our government makes it harder to be a confessing Christian or for Christians to practice not just worship as we believe, I think the pruning will be even heavier. I think our pews are still filled with people who have a marginal faith. The parable of the sower is coming to pass. The rocky soil and thorns are crowding in.
    I pray that the LORD will keep me steadfast in the faith.

  • larry

    All this can and will be answered in the concrete as things unravel, no matter what side of the political issue one is on. If Americans want to know how or what political policies do they need not speculate. That’s how misdirection occurs. Look at the concrete. Do a budget and look at how one’s concrete dollars are spending and look at the trends. Then in the concrete real time, sans speculation, you’ll know for you your self the answer to all these great mysteries. When we think about ‘the guy over there’ or some idealistic group over there we do nothing but speculate. In order to keep one’s foot on the ground and out of the wispy ghost like speculative world of the politicians simply look at the effects in the concrete to your self. In the world of speculation politicians can construct all sorts of straw men to knock down or follow. But in the world of the concrete, your nose is either your nose or not.

    Obamacare: We need not speculate ‘will it save or cost money’. One can predict, depending on one’s disposition toward it. But we really won’t have to. As it unravels in the years to come, don’t speculate just check your bottom line. Did your medical cost for holding insurance (not actually medical incidence cost which vary due to health or lack thereof) go up or down for you?

    Taxes: Same thing, You’ll know in the concrete, and not in the lawyer ethereal realm, but in the earthy concrete when you count your dollars that pass through your actual fingers that you can actually spend and the bills come in or not.

    Jobs: No problem there either. Either more real concrete and actual people you know with your eyes, ears and touch, and/or yourself, will actually be employed or not. You’ll know concretely and so will your neighbor whether or not a physical check due to employment is coming your way in a consistent frequency. You won’t have to speculate, “is the economy better or worse”.

    Energy (oil, gas, electric, etc.). Again, look for the concrete, one will not know when one speculates about policy but as concrete dollar bills either go out faster or slower than before. E.g. when you fill up your gasoline tank that has an actual finite volume depending on the model and make of your vehicle (gasoline tanks are not expandable and contracting units, like a balloon, but fixed volumes), and you see there will be a number called “gallons” on the pumping unit representing a real concrete volume, and a second number with a “$” in front of it ($ represents dollars or U. S. currency, that concrete thing that comes out of your concrete check due to concrete employment). One can then calculate every time those concrete acquisitions and expenditures, then trend them over time to follow higher cost or lower costs.

    Etc. with the everything else political.

  • larry

    All this can and will be answered in the concrete as things unravel, no matter what side of the political issue one is on. If Americans want to know how or what political policies do they need not speculate. That’s how misdirection occurs. Look at the concrete. Do a budget and look at how one’s concrete dollars are spending and look at the trends. Then in the concrete real time, sans speculation, you’ll know for you your self the answer to all these great mysteries. When we think about ‘the guy over there’ or some idealistic group over there we do nothing but speculate. In order to keep one’s foot on the ground and out of the wispy ghost like speculative world of the politicians simply look at the effects in the concrete to your self. In the world of speculation politicians can construct all sorts of straw men to knock down or follow. But in the world of the concrete, your nose is either your nose or not.

    Obamacare: We need not speculate ‘will it save or cost money’. One can predict, depending on one’s disposition toward it. But we really won’t have to. As it unravels in the years to come, don’t speculate just check your bottom line. Did your medical cost for holding insurance (not actually medical incidence cost which vary due to health or lack thereof) go up or down for you?

    Taxes: Same thing, You’ll know in the concrete, and not in the lawyer ethereal realm, but in the earthy concrete when you count your dollars that pass through your actual fingers that you can actually spend and the bills come in or not.

    Jobs: No problem there either. Either more real concrete and actual people you know with your eyes, ears and touch, and/or yourself, will actually be employed or not. You’ll know concretely and so will your neighbor whether or not a physical check due to employment is coming your way in a consistent frequency. You won’t have to speculate, “is the economy better or worse”.

    Energy (oil, gas, electric, etc.). Again, look for the concrete, one will not know when one speculates about policy but as concrete dollar bills either go out faster or slower than before. E.g. when you fill up your gasoline tank that has an actual finite volume depending on the model and make of your vehicle (gasoline tanks are not expandable and contracting units, like a balloon, but fixed volumes), and you see there will be a number called “gallons” on the pumping unit representing a real concrete volume, and a second number with a “$” in front of it ($ represents dollars or U. S. currency, that concrete thing that comes out of your concrete check due to concrete employment). One can then calculate every time those concrete acquisitions and expenditures, then trend them over time to follow higher cost or lower costs.

    Etc. with the everything else political.

  • SKPeterson

    I think there may be more state challenges to federal proposals, or outright ignoring of federal mandates (one can only hope).

    The safety of the United States will not be impaired, nor has it been any more impaired under Obama as it was under Bush fils, or Clinton, or Bush pere. Our national security posture may continue to decline, but that is probably more a function of our continued support through both Democrat and Republican presidencies of an interventionist foreign policy that continuously goes abroad seeking monsters to destroy, while simultaneously ginning up a steady state of alarm and fear in the general populace.

    As to Iran and their pursuit of nuclear weapons. It is a silly policy for them to pursue considering their deep economic problems; problems that wouldn’t go away should sanctions cease. However, I have yet to see a credible explanation for why Iran wants nuclear weapons that doesn’t invoke the fairly legitimate fear that Iran has of facing continued foreign aggression. Iran has a blustery leadership prone to overly dramatic rhetoric. So does Israel. Israel (probably) has nuclear weapons. Iran certainly suspects that they do, and it doesn’t like it, nor does it like the possibility of direct U.S. interference. So, from that standpoint, the pursuit of a nuclear deterrent by Iran is actually a rational response. The more unstable point of potential nuclear conflagration is actually a little further east between Pakistan and India, yet that potential is almost completely off the rhetorical radar.

    I think we may face the very real possibility that the dollar will begin to decline as the global reserve currency, and that the U.S. will find its debt harder and harder to sell on the global market. If and when?) that does happen, we’ll have a nice combination of higher interest rates, higher money supply levels (since global demand has been the one thing holding our inflation down) leading to higher prices, and a government that will suddenly find itself unable to afford all of the programs it has enacted since the debt well will have begun to go dry. This will probably play out initially in more community bankruptcies, followed by states (California and Illinois, possibly New York), and then the likelihood of failed attempts to bail those places out, leading to a U.S. credit crisis. At that point, there may be serious calls to break up the band that could see states and regions splitting off.

    I don’t expect most of those scenarios to happen in the next four years, but the foundations have been poured, and they will begin to set over the coming four years. I should also hasten to add that this list of scenarios would alter little should Mr. Romney been elected.

  • SKPeterson

    I think there may be more state challenges to federal proposals, or outright ignoring of federal mandates (one can only hope).

    The safety of the United States will not be impaired, nor has it been any more impaired under Obama as it was under Bush fils, or Clinton, or Bush pere. Our national security posture may continue to decline, but that is probably more a function of our continued support through both Democrat and Republican presidencies of an interventionist foreign policy that continuously goes abroad seeking monsters to destroy, while simultaneously ginning up a steady state of alarm and fear in the general populace.

    As to Iran and their pursuit of nuclear weapons. It is a silly policy for them to pursue considering their deep economic problems; problems that wouldn’t go away should sanctions cease. However, I have yet to see a credible explanation for why Iran wants nuclear weapons that doesn’t invoke the fairly legitimate fear that Iran has of facing continued foreign aggression. Iran has a blustery leadership prone to overly dramatic rhetoric. So does Israel. Israel (probably) has nuclear weapons. Iran certainly suspects that they do, and it doesn’t like it, nor does it like the possibility of direct U.S. interference. So, from that standpoint, the pursuit of a nuclear deterrent by Iran is actually a rational response. The more unstable point of potential nuclear conflagration is actually a little further east between Pakistan and India, yet that potential is almost completely off the rhetorical radar.

    I think we may face the very real possibility that the dollar will begin to decline as the global reserve currency, and that the U.S. will find its debt harder and harder to sell on the global market. If and when?) that does happen, we’ll have a nice combination of higher interest rates, higher money supply levels (since global demand has been the one thing holding our inflation down) leading to higher prices, and a government that will suddenly find itself unable to afford all of the programs it has enacted since the debt well will have begun to go dry. This will probably play out initially in more community bankruptcies, followed by states (California and Illinois, possibly New York), and then the likelihood of failed attempts to bail those places out, leading to a U.S. credit crisis. At that point, there may be serious calls to break up the band that could see states and regions splitting off.

    I don’t expect most of those scenarios to happen in the next four years, but the foundations have been poured, and they will begin to set over the coming four years. I should also hasten to add that this list of scenarios would alter little should Mr. Romney been elected.

  • http://www.caryschwarz.com saddler

    “I don’t expect most of those scenarios to happen in the next four years, but the foundations have been poured, and they will begin to set over the coming four years. I should also hasten to add that this list of scenarios would alter little should Mr. Romney been elected.”

    Agreed.

  • http://www.caryschwarz.com saddler

    “I don’t expect most of those scenarios to happen in the next four years, but the foundations have been poured, and they will begin to set over the coming four years. I should also hasten to add that this list of scenarios would alter little should Mr. Romney been elected.”

    Agreed.

  • Cincinnatus

    As usual, I agree with SKPeterson, so I have nothing to add there.

    Incumbent Presidents usually have lackluster second terms with respect to goals accomplished (e.g., Reagan, Clinton, George W.). Considering that Obama faces opposition in the form of a Republican Congress, don’t expect much of anything to get done.

    By the way, Boehner is all talk. He wants to give the appearance of flexibility so he can play the Democrats as obstructionist in time for 2014 and 2016: claim that he’s open to a budget deal, but not the half-measures proposed by Democrats. Voila: Democrats responsible for the ongoing debt crisis.

    Notice that this election was fairly remarkable in that Obama quite literally had no platform. None. No flagship programs, no promised policy proposals (except asking the “super rich” to pay “a little more”). No agenda. So not only will he find it difficult to accomplish anything via Congress, he doesn’t even have anything to accomplish in the first place.

    This will be a lame duck presidency with more economic stagflation. Several cabinet members–Clinton, Holder, and Geithner–are already distancing themselves from the administration, with Clinton in particular attempting to preserve her brand from the stain of a lackluster Obama administration in expectation of 2016.

    Did this election matter? Sure, as much as any national election in the late twentieth century has mattered. Which is to say, not much at all.

  • Cincinnatus

    As usual, I agree with SKPeterson, so I have nothing to add there.

    Incumbent Presidents usually have lackluster second terms with respect to goals accomplished (e.g., Reagan, Clinton, George W.). Considering that Obama faces opposition in the form of a Republican Congress, don’t expect much of anything to get done.

    By the way, Boehner is all talk. He wants to give the appearance of flexibility so he can play the Democrats as obstructionist in time for 2014 and 2016: claim that he’s open to a budget deal, but not the half-measures proposed by Democrats. Voila: Democrats responsible for the ongoing debt crisis.

    Notice that this election was fairly remarkable in that Obama quite literally had no platform. None. No flagship programs, no promised policy proposals (except asking the “super rich” to pay “a little more”). No agenda. So not only will he find it difficult to accomplish anything via Congress, he doesn’t even have anything to accomplish in the first place.

    This will be a lame duck presidency with more economic stagflation. Several cabinet members–Clinton, Holder, and Geithner–are already distancing themselves from the administration, with Clinton in particular attempting to preserve her brand from the stain of a lackluster Obama administration in expectation of 2016.

    Did this election matter? Sure, as much as any national election in the late twentieth century has mattered. Which is to say, not much at all.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Shall we bookmark this conversation so that we can return to it 4 years from now?

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Shall we bookmark this conversation so that we can return to it 4 years from now?

  • Tom Hering

    I’ll be curious to see, four years from now, what the black swans were. Unpredictable, uncontrollable events that changed everything.

  • Tom Hering

    I’ll be curious to see, four years from now, what the black swans were. Unpredictable, uncontrollable events that changed everything.

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom,

    You means things like “exogenous shocks”–for example, 9/11 or Benghazi–or scandals?

    Because, yes, those could change the dynamic. But given relatively typical American politics, I think we’re looking at four more years of ho-hum lame-duckiness with continued massive deficits + increased inflation.

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom,

    You means things like “exogenous shocks”–for example, 9/11 or Benghazi–or scandals?

    Because, yes, those could change the dynamic. But given relatively typical American politics, I think we’re looking at four more years of ho-hum lame-duckiness with continued massive deficits + increased inflation.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    I predict another Scandal for Obama, btw, and I predict it will be more damaging in scope than his Bengazi and Fast and furious scandals. Always seems as if 2 term presidents succeed in doing something stupid to ruin their repuation.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    I predict another Scandal for Obama, btw, and I predict it will be more damaging in scope than his Bengazi and Fast and furious scandals. Always seems as if 2 term presidents succeed in doing something stupid to ruin their repuation.

  • #4 Kitty

    @6

    There is no mandate for Obama. He won a very narrow victory by doing a much better job of turning out his core base.

    Obama earned more than 100 electoral votes than Romney. In your opinion, how many more votes would he have had to obtain before you would consider the victory anything other than “very narrow”. I mean, for example, had he won by 150 electoral votes would you consider changing your description from “very narrow” to simply “narrow”.
    And if he had won by over 200 electoral votes would you then consider changing the term “narrow” to…let’s say, “slight”? Or since Fox News and other conservative echo chambers have taught you to hate our president, is there no chance at all of you characterizing his win as a solid victory?

  • #4 Kitty

    @6

    There is no mandate for Obama. He won a very narrow victory by doing a much better job of turning out his core base.

    Obama earned more than 100 electoral votes than Romney. In your opinion, how many more votes would he have had to obtain before you would consider the victory anything other than “very narrow”. I mean, for example, had he won by 150 electoral votes would you consider changing your description from “very narrow” to simply “narrow”.
    And if he had won by over 200 electoral votes would you then consider changing the term “narrow” to…let’s say, “slight”? Or since Fox News and other conservative echo chambers have taught you to hate our president, is there no chance at all of you characterizing his win as a solid victory?

  • Bryan Lindemood

    I wonder if this election will prompt people to be more open to 3rd or 4th parties and the wisdom of more open and broadly based political (not-social) debate?
    I doubt it.

  • Bryan Lindemood

    I wonder if this election will prompt people to be more open to 3rd or 4th parties and the wisdom of more open and broadly based political (not-social) debate?
    I doubt it.

  • Ed

    In the wake of the election the talk about taxes continues. But it isn’t really about taxes; it’s about capital. “Taxing the rich” isn’t about solving the deficit problem because they don’t have enough money to pay for it. It isn’t about “fairness” because the “rich” pay over 85% of the personal tax revenue to the government while nearly half of the people pay nothing or actually receive cash they didn’t pay in on their returns.

    It’s about control of capital. Does the control of capital rest in private hands or in the hands of the collective/ government/ rulers? As a result of this election will capital be invested as it was with Solyndra, by government, not by those who bear the risk, and according to ideological rather than economic reasons? The taxpayer will continue to bear the risk for the actions of banks and other financial firms. (No wonder they supported the democrats.)

    The democrats and the rope-a-doped republicans are on track to transfer capital from private hands to the hands to of our keepers and the risk from investors/ capitalists to the taxpayers.

  • Ed

    In the wake of the election the talk about taxes continues. But it isn’t really about taxes; it’s about capital. “Taxing the rich” isn’t about solving the deficit problem because they don’t have enough money to pay for it. It isn’t about “fairness” because the “rich” pay over 85% of the personal tax revenue to the government while nearly half of the people pay nothing or actually receive cash they didn’t pay in on their returns.

    It’s about control of capital. Does the control of capital rest in private hands or in the hands of the collective/ government/ rulers? As a result of this election will capital be invested as it was with Solyndra, by government, not by those who bear the risk, and according to ideological rather than economic reasons? The taxpayer will continue to bear the risk for the actions of banks and other financial firms. (No wonder they supported the democrats.)

    The democrats and the rope-a-doped republicans are on track to transfer capital from private hands to the hands to of our keepers and the risk from investors/ capitalists to the taxpayers.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Given my recent history of prognostication – I don’t feel particularly inclined to go too far out on a limb.

    But I do think that it is safe to say that Obama has no more leverage than Bush did after his re-election (and likely less, given the fact that in 2005 Republicans controlled the House as well as the Senate). Gridlock, messy politics and mutual finger-pointing seem to be the most likely outcomes to me. And I don’t see the economy enjoying a big recovery. What recovery we see will likely be much like what we have seen the past 2+ years. Sluggish growth, persistently high unemployment and looming issues with entitlements and debt.

    Tom and Cincinnatus,
    There will certainly be other scandals and/or world events that come to the forefront – but very few of them end up being true “game-changers”. Generally in terms of the effect on a Presidency it has more of a “drip-drip-drip” effect. They just add up over time.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Given my recent history of prognostication – I don’t feel particularly inclined to go too far out on a limb.

    But I do think that it is safe to say that Obama has no more leverage than Bush did after his re-election (and likely less, given the fact that in 2005 Republicans controlled the House as well as the Senate). Gridlock, messy politics and mutual finger-pointing seem to be the most likely outcomes to me. And I don’t see the economy enjoying a big recovery. What recovery we see will likely be much like what we have seen the past 2+ years. Sluggish growth, persistently high unemployment and looming issues with entitlements and debt.

    Tom and Cincinnatus,
    There will certainly be other scandals and/or world events that come to the forefront – but very few of them end up being true “game-changers”. Generally in terms of the effect on a Presidency it has more of a “drip-drip-drip” effect. They just add up over time.

  • Tom Hering

    … banks and other financial firms. (No wonder they supported the democrats.) (@ 19)

    Not so, or rather, not so much.

    http://www.wnyc.org/shows/moneytalking/2012/aug/17/

    http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/05/16/donors_with_big_bank_ties_favor_romney_desert_obama/

  • Tom Hering

    … banks and other financial firms. (No wonder they supported the democrats.) (@ 19)

    Not so, or rather, not so much.

    http://www.wnyc.org/shows/moneytalking/2012/aug/17/

    http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/05/16/donors_with_big_bank_ties_favor_romney_desert_obama/

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com John

    I think the biggest change will be the Republican party. The election demonstrated that their rhetoric is at best tired, and at worst, alienating.

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com John

    I think the biggest change will be the Republican party. The election demonstrated that their rhetoric is at best tired, and at worst, alienating.

  • Marian

    The President will appoint at least 2 more Supreme Court justices and innumerable lower-court judges. All of them will adhere to the living-Constitution philosophy that makes it possible for them to justify upholding Roe v. Wade, which will be re-set in concrete for another generation or more. He’ll also be selecting candidates who agree with his Justice Department that “freedom of religion” really only means “freedom of worship” so they can uphold the HHS mandate requiring converage of abortion-inducing drugs. Fairly soon, HHS will require all insurance companies to cover abortion services.

    Now that 3 states have approved gay marriage through popular vote, the push to define all opposition as outdated bigotry will accelerate. As long as the Republicans hold the House, Democrats won’t be able to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act through Congress; but even if the current Supreme Court upholds DOMA this term, it will last only until one or two Justices retire (see above). After that, expect to see DOMA repealed and all states forced to recognize gay marriages. Individuals and institutions that disagree will be branded by the law as well as public opinion as bigots, with the same consequences that currently fall on racists. The marriage culture in our country will continue to decay.

  • Marian

    The President will appoint at least 2 more Supreme Court justices and innumerable lower-court judges. All of them will adhere to the living-Constitution philosophy that makes it possible for them to justify upholding Roe v. Wade, which will be re-set in concrete for another generation or more. He’ll also be selecting candidates who agree with his Justice Department that “freedom of religion” really only means “freedom of worship” so they can uphold the HHS mandate requiring converage of abortion-inducing drugs. Fairly soon, HHS will require all insurance companies to cover abortion services.

    Now that 3 states have approved gay marriage through popular vote, the push to define all opposition as outdated bigotry will accelerate. As long as the Republicans hold the House, Democrats won’t be able to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act through Congress; but even if the current Supreme Court upholds DOMA this term, it will last only until one or two Justices retire (see above). After that, expect to see DOMA repealed and all states forced to recognize gay marriages. Individuals and institutions that disagree will be branded by the law as well as public opinion as bigots, with the same consequences that currently fall on racists. The marriage culture in our country will continue to decay.

  • BW

    Boehner wants a one year delay on the fiscal cliff/sequestration issue. Obama was saying, during the debates, that he doesn’t want sequestration. Even post-election, they still want to kick the can down the road a little further and not tackle the problem.

  • BW

    Boehner wants a one year delay on the fiscal cliff/sequestration issue. Obama was saying, during the debates, that he doesn’t want sequestration. Even post-election, they still want to kick the can down the road a little further and not tackle the problem.

  • Tom Hering

    Can you think of other likely results of this election? (Dr. Veith)

    How about this: we all now have a sense of which way we’re going. “Where are we headed – what’s going to happen?” were the questions on voter’s minds. Romney failed to give us a concrete vision of the next four years. So did the President. But given that mutual failure, “the next four years will be like the last four years” (including slow, incremental improvement in the economy) probably seemed like the only safe bet to a majority of voters.

  • Tom Hering

    Can you think of other likely results of this election? (Dr. Veith)

    How about this: we all now have a sense of which way we’re going. “Where are we headed – what’s going to happen?” were the questions on voter’s minds. Romney failed to give us a concrete vision of the next four years. So did the President. But given that mutual failure, “the next four years will be like the last four years” (including slow, incremental improvement in the economy) probably seemed like the only safe bet to a majority of voters.

  • http://carolmsblog.blogspot.com/ C-Christian Soldier

    Black Regiment- Bold CHRISTIAN leaders-
    John Peter Muhlenberg comes quickly to mind–
    Posted about this yesterday–
    C-CS

  • http://carolmsblog.blogspot.com/ C-Christian Soldier

    Black Regiment- Bold CHRISTIAN leaders-
    John Peter Muhlenberg comes quickly to mind–
    Posted about this yesterday–
    C-CS

  • DonS

    1. As Dr. Veith said, Obamacare is now the law of the land. Health care choices will greatly diminish, health care will get much more expensive, many more Americans will be underemployed as employers shift to part-time work to avoid health care mandates. Obamacare taxes start in January — a 2.3% gross receipts tax on all medical device companies, whether or not they make any money, and a 3.8% Medicare tax on all income over $250,000, even unearned income. That’s just the beginning, and adds to the “fiscal cliff” problem.

    2. 2013 will be the beginning of another recession, with all of the new fiscal cliff taxes in combination with the Obamacare taxes. If the government is able to avoid the fiscal cliff, it will be by a typical Republican/Democrat compromise — Obama will agree to give up all or most of the taxes in exchange for the Republicans giving up all or most of the spending cuts that are currently on the books. The deficit soars, and our kids lose.

    3. The federal judiciary will move sharply to the left during the next four years. Individual liberties will be at great risk, particularly as Obama and the Senate move to ratify several UN treaties prior to the likely Republican takeover of the Senate in 2014.

    4. The Republicans will almost certainly take the Senate in 2014. Democrats are defending more seats, many in red states. The Republicans are defending fewer seats, all but one in red states. The president’s party typically loses seats in both houses of Congress during midterm elections, particularly in the second term.

  • DonS

    1. As Dr. Veith said, Obamacare is now the law of the land. Health care choices will greatly diminish, health care will get much more expensive, many more Americans will be underemployed as employers shift to part-time work to avoid health care mandates. Obamacare taxes start in January — a 2.3% gross receipts tax on all medical device companies, whether or not they make any money, and a 3.8% Medicare tax on all income over $250,000, even unearned income. That’s just the beginning, and adds to the “fiscal cliff” problem.

    2. 2013 will be the beginning of another recession, with all of the new fiscal cliff taxes in combination with the Obamacare taxes. If the government is able to avoid the fiscal cliff, it will be by a typical Republican/Democrat compromise — Obama will agree to give up all or most of the taxes in exchange for the Republicans giving up all or most of the spending cuts that are currently on the books. The deficit soars, and our kids lose.

    3. The federal judiciary will move sharply to the left during the next four years. Individual liberties will be at great risk, particularly as Obama and the Senate move to ratify several UN treaties prior to the likely Republican takeover of the Senate in 2014.

    4. The Republicans will almost certainly take the Senate in 2014. Democrats are defending more seats, many in red states. The Republicans are defending fewer seats, all but one in red states. The president’s party typically loses seats in both houses of Congress during midterm elections, particularly in the second term.

  • Jon H.

    It’s interesting to go back and watch Eastwood’s shtick of talking to the empty chair. Now it looks like he’s talking to the future of the GOP, unless it drastically changes.

    DonS@27, I’m still laughing at your election prediction. If your sense of shame hadn’t been surgically removed, you’d refrain from commenting here for about a month or two.

  • Jon H.

    It’s interesting to go back and watch Eastwood’s shtick of talking to the empty chair. Now it looks like he’s talking to the future of the GOP, unless it drastically changes.

    DonS@27, I’m still laughing at your election prediction. If your sense of shame hadn’t been surgically removed, you’d refrain from commenting here for about a month or two.

  • Joe

    Kitty – presidential mandates come from the popular vote not the electoral college’s winner take all regardless of the % of the take formula. Mandates come from the ability to argue that a dominate percentage of the people wanted you back in office. Obama won fewer votes (in raw numbers) and fewer votes (by percentage of the pop vote) in 2o12 than he did in 2008. You get a win from those numbers, but you don’t get a mandate. He’ll find that out if he attempts anything bold in the next two years. Buckle in for more gridlock until the 2014 midterms.

  • Joe

    Kitty – presidential mandates come from the popular vote not the electoral college’s winner take all regardless of the % of the take formula. Mandates come from the ability to argue that a dominate percentage of the people wanted you back in office. Obama won fewer votes (in raw numbers) and fewer votes (by percentage of the pop vote) in 2o12 than he did in 2008. You get a win from those numbers, but you don’t get a mandate. He’ll find that out if he attempts anything bold in the next two years. Buckle in for more gridlock until the 2014 midterms.

  • reg

    DonS,
    This was your prediction 5 days ago:
    “I do believe that Romney is going to win comfortably. This does not mean it will be comfortable tomorrow night, as a number of states are likely to be closely contested. But, ultimately, he will win the EC by a comfortable margin. The PV margin will be between 2 and 3 points, something like 51-48, similar to Bush’s win in 2004. In the EC, Romney will win VA in a nailbiter, NC, CO, and FL much more easily. OH will be tough, but Romney wins by 1-2 points. This gives him the election, with 275 EV’s. I also think he picks up IA, NH, and WI. That’s 295. He has a legitimate shot at PA and, to a lesser extent, MN. For the sake of it, I say he gets PA, but not MN, for a total of 315.”

    Now you predict that ” The Republicans will almost certainly take the Senate in 2014. ”

    Given your track record I assume we can count on Dems +3 minimum in 2014.

  • reg

    DonS,
    This was your prediction 5 days ago:
    “I do believe that Romney is going to win comfortably. This does not mean it will be comfortable tomorrow night, as a number of states are likely to be closely contested. But, ultimately, he will win the EC by a comfortable margin. The PV margin will be between 2 and 3 points, something like 51-48, similar to Bush’s win in 2004. In the EC, Romney will win VA in a nailbiter, NC, CO, and FL much more easily. OH will be tough, but Romney wins by 1-2 points. This gives him the election, with 275 EV’s. I also think he picks up IA, NH, and WI. That’s 295. He has a legitimate shot at PA and, to a lesser extent, MN. For the sake of it, I say he gets PA, but not MN, for a total of 315.”

    Now you predict that ” The Republicans will almost certainly take the Senate in 2014. ”

    Given your track record I assume we can count on Dems +3 minimum in 2014.

  • DonS

    reg @ 30: A lot of people predicted Romney was going to win. You are, of course, free to ignore my predictions, but the fact that I got a close election wrong is not cause for me to slink to the sidelines.

    My prediction concerning the Senate is based on sound history. Keep in mind — it’s a prediction, not a sure thing. The fact that the Republicans need to pick up six seats not will make it a close deal. But look at the map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2014

    The Democrats are defending 20 seats, while the Republicans are defending 13. Look where the Republican seats are. As long as Susan Collins runs for re-election in Maine, they are not likely to lose ANY seats. On the other hand, look where the Democratic seats are: AK, MT, SD, AK, LA, NC, VA, WV, CO, NH, IA are all red or swing states where Republicans have pick-up opportunities.

  • DonS

    reg @ 30: A lot of people predicted Romney was going to win. You are, of course, free to ignore my predictions, but the fact that I got a close election wrong is not cause for me to slink to the sidelines.

    My prediction concerning the Senate is based on sound history. Keep in mind — it’s a prediction, not a sure thing. The fact that the Republicans need to pick up six seats not will make it a close deal. But look at the map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2014

    The Democrats are defending 20 seats, while the Republicans are defending 13. Look where the Republican seats are. As long as Susan Collins runs for re-election in Maine, they are not likely to lose ANY seats. On the other hand, look where the Democratic seats are: AK, MT, SD, AK, LA, NC, VA, WV, CO, NH, IA are all red or swing states where Republicans have pick-up opportunities.

  • DonS

    @ 31, “not” should be “now” and one of the “AK” ‘s should have been AR.

  • DonS

    @ 31, “not” should be “now” and one of the “AK” ‘s should have been AR.

  • Jon H.

    DonS @31, You “got a close election wrong”? I’m laughing even harder. C’mon, grow some stones and just admit you’re a blind, partisan hack.

  • Jon H.

    DonS @31, You “got a close election wrong”? I’m laughing even harder. C’mon, grow some stones and just admit you’re a blind, partisan hack.

  • Carl Vehse

    For a lot of different map and cartogram displays of the 2012 election results, check out University of Michigan Physics Professor Mark Newman’s site, Maps of the 2012 US presidential election results.

    The USAToday pastel version (for sensitive folks) of the county-based results is shown on this Outside the Beltway thread along with a comparison to a similar 2008 map. A link is provided at the site so one can also see maps from 2000 and 2004.

  • Carl Vehse

    For a lot of different map and cartogram displays of the 2012 election results, check out University of Michigan Physics Professor Mark Newman’s site, Maps of the 2012 US presidential election results.

    The USAToday pastel version (for sensitive folks) of the county-based results is shown on this Outside the Beltway thread along with a comparison to a similar 2008 map. A link is provided at the site so one can also see maps from 2000 and 2004.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I decided to do the math because I was curious, but as an example of why the electoral college is not a good way to determine a “mandate” or any other such thing, do you know what the smallest percentage of the popular vote one would need in order to win the presidency?

    Admittedly, it’s a highly unlikely scenario, but in order to get 270 electoral votes (that’s just slightly over half of them), all you need is 28.4% of the popular vote.

    Point being, electoral victories — even significant ones — rarely imply anything about sea changes in the population.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I decided to do the math because I was curious, but as an example of why the electoral college is not a good way to determine a “mandate” or any other such thing, do you know what the smallest percentage of the popular vote one would need in order to win the presidency?

    Admittedly, it’s a highly unlikely scenario, but in order to get 270 electoral votes (that’s just slightly over half of them), all you need is 28.4% of the popular vote.

    Point being, electoral victories — even significant ones — rarely imply anything about sea changes in the population.

  • dust

    Jon H….

    “You “got a close election wrong”? I’m laughing even harder.”

    you don’t think it was close? guess it depends on the definition of close?

    “C’mon, grow some stones and just admit you’re a blind, partisan hack.”

    look who’s talking :)

    cheers!

  • dust

    Jon H….

    “You “got a close election wrong”? I’m laughing even harder.”

    you don’t think it was close? guess it depends on the definition of close?

    “C’mon, grow some stones and just admit you’re a blind, partisan hack.”

    look who’s talking :)

    cheers!

  • dust

    One could win 270 electoral votes with less than 28.4% of the popular vote, but it would be much more unlikely….

    imagine in each state that comprised the 270 electoral votes, the winner got 1 vote and the loser got 0 votes.

    then in the other states, the winner (but the loser in the final race) got millions of votes and the loser (who won the electoral vote) got 0.

    perhaps it’s time to end the electoral college :)

    cheers!

  • dust

    One could win 270 electoral votes with less than 28.4% of the popular vote, but it would be much more unlikely….

    imagine in each state that comprised the 270 electoral votes, the winner got 1 vote and the loser got 0 votes.

    then in the other states, the winner (but the loser in the final race) got millions of votes and the loser (who won the electoral vote) got 0.

    perhaps it’s time to end the electoral college :)

    cheers!

  • DonS

    Agreed with tODD on the “mandate” issue. Few presidents can truly claim a “mandate”. Certainly, Reagan could, and did, and made some significant changes to the tax code, etc., though the “mandate” was vitiated during his second term, as he began to lose congressional seats and fell into scandal. Clinton thought he had a mandate (even though, because of Perot, he got only 40 some % of the PV), but overreached with his Hilary Care proposals and got smoked in the Congressional elections of 1994. Bush 41/43 never had any kind of mandate, though with both houses of the Congress in 2000 was able to pass his tax reform proposals. He was re-elected in 2004 probably solely because of the ongoing Iraq war, and a reluctance to change presidents during it. Obama could legitimately claim a mandate in 2008, but overreached much as Clinton did (though he did manage to force Obamacare through a recalcitrant Congress despite public opposition), and paid the price in the 2010 midterms. In retrospect, Obama’s sweeping win was probably less a mandate for his policies than it was Bush fatigue.

    I continue to believe that there is no credible way that the PV and EC will come out differently, save a very close election like 2000, where the PV is essentially tied, but very very narrowly goes to the losing candidate. That election was within the margin of fraud/error, in any event, both at the EC and PV levels.

    Amending the Constitution to eliminate the EC would result in campaigns focused on urban and suburban voters. Rural voters would be lost in the shuffle, and would lose almost all voice as to policy. For this reason, it never will or should happen.

  • DonS

    Agreed with tODD on the “mandate” issue. Few presidents can truly claim a “mandate”. Certainly, Reagan could, and did, and made some significant changes to the tax code, etc., though the “mandate” was vitiated during his second term, as he began to lose congressional seats and fell into scandal. Clinton thought he had a mandate (even though, because of Perot, he got only 40 some % of the PV), but overreached with his Hilary Care proposals and got smoked in the Congressional elections of 1994. Bush 41/43 never had any kind of mandate, though with both houses of the Congress in 2000 was able to pass his tax reform proposals. He was re-elected in 2004 probably solely because of the ongoing Iraq war, and a reluctance to change presidents during it. Obama could legitimately claim a mandate in 2008, but overreached much as Clinton did (though he did manage to force Obamacare through a recalcitrant Congress despite public opposition), and paid the price in the 2010 midterms. In retrospect, Obama’s sweeping win was probably less a mandate for his policies than it was Bush fatigue.

    I continue to believe that there is no credible way that the PV and EC will come out differently, save a very close election like 2000, where the PV is essentially tied, but very very narrowly goes to the losing candidate. That election was within the margin of fraud/error, in any event, both at the EC and PV levels.

    Amending the Constitution to eliminate the EC would result in campaigns focused on urban and suburban voters. Rural voters would be lost in the shuffle, and would lose almost all voice as to policy. For this reason, it never will or should happen.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    One other thing, Obama had ten million fewer votes this time around. I think some of his success can be attributed at least in part to the lack of enthusiasm for Romney (much like Kerry in 04)

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    One other thing, Obama had ten million fewer votes this time around. I think some of his success can be attributed at least in part to the lack of enthusiasm for Romney (much like Kerry in 04)

  • Bob

    What Jon H. said.

    A close election. What a pile of horse manure.

    That’s OK>.You righties have 4 years to whine and snivel.

  • Bob

    What Jon H. said.

    A close election. What a pile of horse manure.

    That’s OK>.You righties have 4 years to whine and snivel.

  • dust

    DonS….

    “Amending the Constitution to eliminate the EC would result in campaigns focused on urban and suburban voters. Rural voters would be lost in the shuffle, and would lose almost all voice as to policy.”

    But that’s how it’s done now!

    Oh yes, there are photo-op moments in the heartland….you sort of have to do it to prove your connected to the agrarian roots of our nation and in touch with the little guy and all the down home country bumpkins….but otherwise 99.99% of time and resources are in place where they get more bang for the buck, aka urban and suburban areas!

    And even worse perhaps, in just those battle ground states while the rest of the states are assumed to be shoe-ins and no need to visit and/or spend valuable resources. Think of all the visits to Ohio have read the Obama campaign wisely did over the past 4 years!

    No the EC is some left over relic from the early days of the nation and should go away, or else do away with the PV as it was in the early days of the nation also…that’s my favorite!

    In the meantime, please don’t go naively repeating the “we can’t do without the EC” propaganda…it just makes you sound like a blind, partisan hack :)

    cheers!

  • dust

    DonS….

    “Amending the Constitution to eliminate the EC would result in campaigns focused on urban and suburban voters. Rural voters would be lost in the shuffle, and would lose almost all voice as to policy.”

    But that’s how it’s done now!

    Oh yes, there are photo-op moments in the heartland….you sort of have to do it to prove your connected to the agrarian roots of our nation and in touch with the little guy and all the down home country bumpkins….but otherwise 99.99% of time and resources are in place where they get more bang for the buck, aka urban and suburban areas!

    And even worse perhaps, in just those battle ground states while the rest of the states are assumed to be shoe-ins and no need to visit and/or spend valuable resources. Think of all the visits to Ohio have read the Obama campaign wisely did over the past 4 years!

    No the EC is some left over relic from the early days of the nation and should go away, or else do away with the PV as it was in the early days of the nation also…that’s my favorite!

    In the meantime, please don’t go naively repeating the “we can’t do without the EC” propaganda…it just makes you sound like a blind, partisan hack :)

    cheers!

  • Cincinnatus

    Bob@40:

    The popular vote was close. I mean, I’m not a “rightie,” and I’m not complaining about Obama’s victory (I thought a Romney victory would be almost equally loathsome), but the election was close.

    When talking about whether an election is “close,” it’s not helpful to refer to the Electoral College. Obama won about 62% (as of today) of the Electoral College vote, but only 51% of the popular vote. It would be difficult to win by a more narrow margin than that in a large country. Moreover, Obama won by a vanishingly slim margin in some of the crucial swing states.

    It was a close election. Certainly not the closest ever, and his victory was clear. But it would be foolish to gloat about a crushing victory.

  • Cincinnatus

    Bob@40:

    The popular vote was close. I mean, I’m not a “rightie,” and I’m not complaining about Obama’s victory (I thought a Romney victory would be almost equally loathsome), but the election was close.

    When talking about whether an election is “close,” it’s not helpful to refer to the Electoral College. Obama won about 62% (as of today) of the Electoral College vote, but only 51% of the popular vote. It would be difficult to win by a more narrow margin than that in a large country. Moreover, Obama won by a vanishingly slim margin in some of the crucial swing states.

    It was a close election. Certainly not the closest ever, and his victory was clear. But it would be foolish to gloat about a crushing victory.

  • dust

    Bob….just saying it doesn’t make it so, sorry!

    show me the beef :)

    cheers!

  • dust

    Bob….just saying it doesn’t make it so, sorry!

    show me the beef :)

    cheers!

  • DonS

    Dust @ 41: It would be worse. At least now, some of the swing states are relatively rural, forcing candidates to address issues other than urban issues. For example, Ohio has fairly large agrarian areas, as well as coal mining. In a PV election, coal mining wouldn’t even have been an afterthought, but it turned out to be a significant issue in the campaign.

    It seems to me that a move to a national PV vote would result in a significant move of the political center of gravity to the left.

  • DonS

    Dust @ 41: It would be worse. At least now, some of the swing states are relatively rural, forcing candidates to address issues other than urban issues. For example, Ohio has fairly large agrarian areas, as well as coal mining. In a PV election, coal mining wouldn’t even have been an afterthought, but it turned out to be a significant issue in the campaign.

    It seems to me that a move to a national PV vote would result in a significant move of the political center of gravity to the left.

  • JDS

    Bob @ 40

    After the next 4 years, we will all be whining and sniveling, including you and all your fellow “lefties”.

  • JDS

    Bob @ 40

    After the next 4 years, we will all be whining and sniveling, including you and all your fellow “lefties”.

  • Spaulding

    I do like the Electoral College but I think that what Nebraska and Maine have for the EC (based on Congressional district not winner take all). That way a more conservative district within a liberal state votes would actually matter. With the way the college currently set up I may as well (and did) vote for Mickey Mouse for president for all my vote is going to matter or count in the outcome of my state. (MN) It would also make it so that the media can’t call the election before the polls close in Alaska and Hawaii.

  • Spaulding

    I do like the Electoral College but I think that what Nebraska and Maine have for the EC (based on Congressional district not winner take all). That way a more conservative district within a liberal state votes would actually matter. With the way the college currently set up I may as well (and did) vote for Mickey Mouse for president for all my vote is going to matter or count in the outcome of my state. (MN) It would also make it so that the media can’t call the election before the polls close in Alaska and Hawaii.

  • P.C.

    Spaulding,

    I agree that the electoral college would be more representative if based on the Congressional district’s vote.

    Unfortunately, in the far left ozone of California, Gov Brown signed legislation that would hand the electoral votes of California to the candidate who wins the most votes nationwide. Therefore, California voters have a good opportunity to be marginalized, whether a Democrat or a Republican wins the state’s majority of voters.

  • P.C.

    Spaulding,

    I agree that the electoral college would be more representative if based on the Congressional district’s vote.

    Unfortunately, in the far left ozone of California, Gov Brown signed legislation that would hand the electoral votes of California to the candidate who wins the most votes nationwide. Therefore, California voters have a good opportunity to be marginalized, whether a Democrat or a Republican wins the state’s majority of voters.

  • RGK

    Here are a couple of likely results that I can think of.

    Congress will continue operate in gridlock and Obama won’t be able to get much done. However, his agencies will run wild implementing his agenda.

    Because of EPA regulations, more coal plants will close which will probably mean that energy prices will rise.

    Obama will continue to kick the debt crisis can down the road as much as he can.

  • RGK

    Here are a couple of likely results that I can think of.

    Congress will continue operate in gridlock and Obama won’t be able to get much done. However, his agencies will run wild implementing his agenda.

    Because of EPA regulations, more coal plants will close which will probably mean that energy prices will rise.

    Obama will continue to kick the debt crisis can down the road as much as he can.

  • dust

    DonS….yes, the constitution would need an amendment to dump the EC, and frankly, it’s a good system and we should keep it. Not sure about the PV?

    The problem is the after-thought to the constitution in the form of the PV…and worse yet, trying to reverse engineer it into the EC…they don’t have compatible parts and it’s getting worse every year, in my humble opinion.

    The solution is simply you can’t have both. Either keep the PV and dump the EC, or keep the EC and dump the PV…which is my favorite of the two, for what it’s worth.

    But stop the charade of an election and do something to save it’s integrity…you must dump one of them!

    Deep in your heart you know this is right :)

    cheers!

  • dust

    DonS….yes, the constitution would need an amendment to dump the EC, and frankly, it’s a good system and we should keep it. Not sure about the PV?

    The problem is the after-thought to the constitution in the form of the PV…and worse yet, trying to reverse engineer it into the EC…they don’t have compatible parts and it’s getting worse every year, in my humble opinion.

    The solution is simply you can’t have both. Either keep the PV and dump the EC, or keep the EC and dump the PV…which is my favorite of the two, for what it’s worth.

    But stop the charade of an election and do something to save it’s integrity…you must dump one of them!

    Deep in your heart you know this is right :)

    cheers!

  • helen

    ED @ -+20
    As a result of this election will capital be invested as it was with Solyndra, by government, not by those who bear the risk, and according to ideological rather than economic reasons?

    It’s my understanding (perhaps I’ll be corrected) that most of the financiers of Wall Street were not gambling with their own money. If they had been, they might have been more concerned about the viability of their inventions. They should be responsible… but I don’t see anyone who might do something about it even suggesting such a thing.

  • helen

    ED @ -+20
    As a result of this election will capital be invested as it was with Solyndra, by government, not by those who bear the risk, and according to ideological rather than economic reasons?

    It’s my understanding (perhaps I’ll be corrected) that most of the financiers of Wall Street were not gambling with their own money. If they had been, they might have been more concerned about the viability of their inventions. They should be responsible… but I don’t see anyone who might do something about it even suggesting such a thing.

  • dust

    helen…you may want to check this out, especially the video:

    http://current.com/groups/news-blog/93952799_my-election-day-green-party-candidate-jill-stein.htm

    cheers!

  • dust

    helen…you may want to check this out, especially the video:

    http://current.com/groups/news-blog/93952799_my-election-day-green-party-candidate-jill-stein.htm

    cheers!

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    P.C. @47
    I do find it odd that the democrats in a state like California that will for the foreseeable future always vote for the Democrat by a large margin would voluntarily give up its 55 EC votes to the PV winner.

    I’m not complaining, though. But I think it won’t last past the next time a Republican gets the PV.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    P.C. @47
    I do find it odd that the democrats in a state like California that will for the foreseeable future always vote for the Democrat by a large margin would voluntarily give up its 55 EC votes to the PV winner.

    I’m not complaining, though. But I think it won’t last past the next time a Republican gets the PV.

  • DonS

    PC @ 47, Mike @ 52: The PV legislation does NOT take effect until states with a combined total of 270 EV’s passes similar legislation. Only the deepest of blue states have passed this legislation so far, and I doubt we will see anywhere near enough states to actually put this law into effect.

    I do agree that, in the event somehow this legislation did become effective, and a Republican won the PV but would lose the EV but for this legislation, the Democrats would find a way to renege.

  • DonS

    PC @ 47, Mike @ 52: The PV legislation does NOT take effect until states with a combined total of 270 EV’s passes similar legislation. Only the deepest of blue states have passed this legislation so far, and I doubt we will see anywhere near enough states to actually put this law into effect.

    I do agree that, in the event somehow this legislation did become effective, and a Republican won the PV but would lose the EV but for this legislation, the Democrats would find a way to renege.

  • SKPeterson

    Further evidence of my contention @ 10 that California (amongst others) is now committing the political equivalent of drinking itself to death:

    http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/11/prepare-for-demise-of-california.html

    Or, as one commentator notes, California has decided to hold a “house burning” party, then expect the rest of us to build them a new one.

  • SKPeterson

    Further evidence of my contention @ 10 that California (amongst others) is now committing the political equivalent of drinking itself to death:

    http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/11/prepare-for-demise-of-california.html

    Or, as one commentator notes, California has decided to hold a “house burning” party, then expect the rest of us to build them a new one.

  • passin’ through

    Can you think of other likely results of this election?

    Righties will be moving to Canada?

    Please?

    http://www.alan.com/2012/11/11/u-s-traffic-reporter-tells-fleeing-republicans-how-to-get-to-canada/

  • passin’ through

    Can you think of other likely results of this election?

    Righties will be moving to Canada?

    Please?

    http://www.alan.com/2012/11/11/u-s-traffic-reporter-tells-fleeing-republicans-how-to-get-to-canada/


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X