Election Night Predictions and Discussion

Election Night Predictions and Discussion November 6, 2012

Now that the votes are being counted, I feel like I can say what I foresee happening.

I predict that either the Democratic or Republican candidate will win the election.

I predict that, if the economy does better or worse, it will have less to do with who was elected president than with other factors.

I predict that the majority of doomsday-like predictions made by opponents of the winner will not come true.

So by all means talk about the election, who you think will win, and what you think will happen as a result if you are correct, or if you are not.

But then let's move on, and ask the next big question: Who will be the candidates in 2016? Anyone out there who would like to see Hillary Clinton vs. Condoleezza Rice?

But let's make this an open thread. And so feel free to have any sort election night discussion, and not just discussion about election might!

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Danny Yencich

    Cthulhu wins by a tidal wave.

  • I have not paid much attention to the doomsday predictions.

    My biggest concern has been who would nominate the next member of the supreme court, as that could have a long term effect.

    For 2016, I would be happy to see Hillary Clinton win. My guess is that Condoleezza Rice will not run, but if she were the Republican nominee then that could signal a change in direction toward a more moderate party. As an independent, I would welcome a Clinton/Rice race.

  • Kaz

    It strikes me that most doomsday predictions are just silly propaganda. However, as someone who has some understanding of finance, I know that irresponsible spending always leads to serious problems. Moreover, someone who continues to spend 40% more than he/she takes in will always go bankrupt, without exception.

    I’d like to hear input about why so many people don’t seem to care much about this issue. After all, when people care about something, they talk about it, yet neither this blog’s owner, nor those who follow it have much to say about the dangerous, irresponsible spending spree the government has been on, and the future ramifications of this spending. In fact, I find the level of indifference fascinating, and so my question is: How much debt before you start to sweat?

    • Claude

      I’d like to hear input about why so many people don’t seem to care much about this issue.

      What? People care about this issue. Certainly the GOP demagogued it to the point where half the country is raving about the debt. However, in a severe recession like the one the US has been experiencing the government needs to spend, both to provide relief to those hit hard by an economic collapse and to buoy the economy. The government can borrow money for practically nothing, anyway.

      The UK imposed austerity measures after the crash, and they are mired in a far worse recession than the US.

      Deficits and the debt simply did not become a hot-button issue until Obama was elected president. It was Dick Cheney who said, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”

      • Gary

        Cheney didn’t mind deficits caused by wars. Reagan outspent the Soviet Union on the Cold War, causing it to collapse with trying to compete with us on weapon’s development. Rice was a “yes man” for Cheney and Bush. I don’t mind a deficit to pay for Grandma. I prefer Clinton in 2016, but I don’t think she is interested.

      • Kaz

        Do you agree with Cheney?

        • Claude

          It depends. I’m not concerned about deficits just about now, during a slow recovery from a catastrophic economic collapse. If the economy were flush I’d favor the kind of financial management that enabled the Clinton administration to bequeath a budget SURPLUS to Bush 43.

          I mention Cheney because where was the Tea Party during all those years Bush was exploding the debt? And so-called deficit hawks like Paul Ryan voted in favor of many a Bush budget-buster. The GOP’s reputation for fiscal conservatism is a joke.

          • Kaz

            Why the constant need to make every conversation about your issues with Republicans? I’m not a Republican, and I’m not really interested in such complaints, particularly on a blog where the absence of self criticism on the part of liberals is nearly absolute.

          • Claude

            You asked for it.

            And if it quacks like a duck…

    • Susan Burns

      Republicans are disingenuous when they complain about debt ruining our children’s future. If they were really concerned about the next generation, they would address climate change. The economic darwinism they advocate will only impact the most vulnerable; children, elderly and disabled. I don’t want to live in a country that turns a blind eye to homeless veterans, sick children and the elderly. This “dangerous, irresponsible spending spree” has prevented us from falling into a deep recession. Please refresh your memory on Hoover’s laissez-faire approach to economic recession and Bush’s wars and irresponsible tax cuts.
      “The concept of a society is based on the quality of mercy; its sense of fair play; its sense of justice.” – Billy Hayes

      • Kaz

        I’m not a Republican; I’m just a guy who is fascinated by the lack of interest on this blog about the national debt and unsustainable deficit spending, and I’m interested in why so many don’t seem concerned.

        • Susan Burns

          If you are not a Republican you are something similar. Everyone is concerned about the unsustainable debt but some of us think shooting ourselves in the foot will not help. We have already tried what you propose and it did not work. Just take a minute to read about laissez-faire. The wiki will do.

          • Kaz

            I haven’t proposed anything, Susan. I have no problem with a tax increase, but I worry that doing so in such a bad economy could retard the recovery that hurting people sorely need. Obama said as much himself:


            Like Obama, I think that the Clinton years were great, economically, and I would not object to a gradual move toward a taxing structure similar to what existed then.

            What I have said is that the government spends too much. I’m not concerned that Democrats spend too much, or that Republicans spend too much, but that *government* spends too much.

            Contrary to your charge, I’m equally critical of both parties. I’m disappointed that Obama would not let Canada send us their oil via pipeline, and that he feels that I should pay for other people’s contraceptives. I’m equally disappointed when I hear Republicans equate Capitalism with Christianity, and I’m concerned when I hear the religious right call America a “Christian Nation”, because, IMO, no kingdom of the world can legitimately bear that title, certainly not a superpower whose supremacy is achieved through military muscle. I am disappointed that the Democrats rammed ObamaCare through without thoroughly thinking it through. I’m equally disappointed in the Republicans for resisting meaningful healthcare reform and putting the Democrats in a position where they either had to ram something through or do nothing at all. Ironically, Republicans may be as much to blame for ObamaCare as the Democrats, because if it weren’t for their stubborn resistance buttressed primarily by the rhetorical charge that nationalized healthcare is some “unAmerican, Socialist” enterprise, better conceived reform may have been achieved long ago.

            It might help you understand me better if you bear in mind that I often offer comments from another perspective for consideration, even if I don’t necessarily hold that perspective personally. I’ll do that especially when I see that conversations are inordinately one-sided. Because I don’t support either political party, I don’t feel any emotional pressure to favor one over the other, and I can therefore consider both their strengths and their failings fairly dispassionately. The issues about which I do sometimes feel some emotional pressure is those issues that directly involve my faith.

          • Susan Burns

            So you’re a troll?

          • Kaz

            I see that you do prefer spitting at people rather than conversing with them.

          • Susan Burns

            My apologies. It seemed to me when I first read your post that you were inciting rather than communicating. But when I reread it appears you don’t have any core values. Either that or you want to remain mysterious. I will repeat my question; do you know what happened when we adopted a laissez-faire approach to economic recession?

          • Kaz

            “But when I reread it appears you don’t have any core values.”

            So you apologize for spitting only to offer a more nuanced form of spitting. I’d be concerned about the need for a reassessment of your own values, frankly.

          • Susan Burns

            “I don’t feel any emotional pressure to favor one over the other, and I can therefore consider both their strengths and their failings fairly dispassionately”

          • Kaz

            So, in other words, in your view, having “core values” is equivalent to supporting a political party, right? I couldn’t disagree more. True
            “core” values are those principles that you believe in and try your best
            to live by without respect to party politics. By “dispassionately” I didn’t mean that it doesn’t matter to me what politicians do, which should have been obvious by the rest of my comments. I’m dispassionate about the “who” not necessarily the “what”. In other words, I can criticize when it’s due, or give credit when it’s due, without respect to whose actions are in view.

          • Claude

            When are you going to articulate which programs you would support cutting from the Government That Shrank Under Obama? Let’s fix this deficit mess right here in the matrix!

          • Claude

            The president is every bit as concerned about the economy as you are. He ran on tax hikes for the $250K+, and that is what he means to get. Let the games begin; John Boehner will be crying when it’s over.

            As for the Democrats “ramming” health care legislation through, perhaps you missed the months and months when Obama negotiated for bipartisan health care reform, foreclosed in advance on the public option so dear to his liberal base, wooed Olympia Snowe, etc, When was it going to be right the time, Kas? That’s right: never.

            So you’re unhappy with spending. Please cut to the chase and tell us what you’d like to cut. By the way:

            The government sector of the economy shrank during the first three years of the Obama administration, but the private sector grew more rapidly than it did during the first three years of either of George W. Bush’s terms in office.


          • Kaz

            To avoid confusion, I should probably mention that when it comes to nationalized healthcare, I am actually of two minds. On the one hand, I’m not opposed to it in principle, and even think that it could work well if done well; on the other, I fear that with the amount of red tape that exists in the U.S., it could potentially become an unaffordable mess that further explodes the debt and erodes the quality of care.

        • Bless your heart, Kaz, I don’t doubt that James is concerned about our national debt as are most of us.

          How many of your comments on this blog have been about the national debt?

          • Kaz

            As far as I’ve seen, I’m the only one whose brought it up as an issue of concern. James brought it up once in the context of criticizing Romney for his declaration that he’d end government subsidies to PBS, but James’s focus was on taking a potshot at Romney, not actual concern for the debt.

          • I’m sorry, Kaz, but you didn’t answer the question. How often have you brought up the national debt on this blog?

          • Kaz

            Sorry, I wasn’t counting, but I’ve brought it up a number of times. Why?