Predictions for four more years?

[franznietzsche]

I agree. America is largely a conservative theistic society.



There are times when the populist idea is not necessarily the right idea. If getting smart involves pandering, I'd rather have Liberals in the minority opposing what they believe are wrong policies, than in the majority proposing them.

Thats fine, but then realize that the liberals will not regain anything resembling and equal power in government for years, maybe as long as a decade. As much as i hate the liberal economic agenda, that is far longer than i want to see the republicans in such a dominant position with the ability to force through almost anything they want.

Tyranny of the majority

That is what democracy is.

"The idea that more than half the people are right more than half the time" ~ H.L. Mencken.

Edit: TO correct an earlier statement, apparently Kerry has not lsot his Senate seat, he still has four years. But Edwards and Daschle have lost their seats.

 

[gravenewworld]

If tyranny of the majority is what democracy is, then screw democracy. Tyranny of the majority is the same thing that gets people like hitler elected. The majority isn't ALWAYS right.

 

[member 5645]

If tyranny of the majority is what democracy is, then screw democracy. Tyranny of the majority is the same thing that gets people like hitler elected. The majority isn't ALWAYS right.

Hitler wasn't elected with a majority, and there are many other factors involved in the threatening of other political bodies that allowed his party to take the minority chunk it DID take.

 

[franznietzsche]

If tyranny of the majority is what democracy is, then screw democracy. Tyranny of the majority is the same thing that gets people like hitler elected. The majority isn't ALWAYS right.

Refer to Mencken quote.

 

[Gokul43201]

If the politicians didn't make unpopular choices, you'd still have segregation.

My biggest complaint against conservatism is that, it is by nature, antithetical to progress. Clearly, you need a balance between progressivism and conservatism to move in the right direction.

 

[gravenewworld]

Ok I agree the Hitler example was a bad one, but for example, the majority of Americans supported America's stance of the El Salvadoran government and military in the '80s which led to the slaughter over 75,000 innocent El Salvadorians.

 

[russ_watters]

Interesting point, franznietzsche. I've never heard it before and its not bad. I do have a hard time drawing such distinctions though, especially since many of our enemies (Iraq) are secular dictatorships, not unlike the ones we faced in WWII. In general, though, I think it works.

 

[setAI]

Conservative Theism vs Socialist Liberalism. That is what this election came down to, and the first culture is the stronger in America.

in 2004 they are stronger- but the populations of cities [blue areas]- particularly of minorities- are increasing exponentially while rural states/counties [red areas]will remain at the same population- by 2015-2020 the cities will represent 3/4s of the total population- people in rural areas are isolated from other cultures and beleifs and so aren't pressured to embrace them- but people in cities who have to live/work with other cultures and learn other ideas through the media/internet/schools learn to open their minds more- religiosity wains- it's a numbers battle that the right cannot win in the end- though they ride high now- it's their nadir

Until you liberals figure this out and stop spouting the same useless ideas, you're going to be faced with this kind of Republican domination of the federal government. get smart, and do it quick.

only for a little while longer- then the GOP won't have the numbers anymore- math is a *****

 

[franznietzsche]

Actually since 2000 the states bush won had increased in population more than the states that Gore/Kerry won. Had Bush won exactly the same state he won in 2000 he would have had 7 more electoral votes than he did then.

 

[franznietzsche]

Interesting point, franznietzsche. I've never heard it before and its not bad. I do have a hard time drawing such distinctions though, especially since many of our enemies (Iraq) are secular dictatorships, not unlike the ones we faced in WWII. In general, though, I think it works.

Saddam was. But the insurgents we are currently fighting aren't. Iran is not secular. North Korea is, but i would argue that North Korea is a remnant of the previous century's political conflicts who's interests now coincide with cultural enemies. Further, the culture of the communist elite is very different from that of the American ruling elite. The russian politburo almost relieved their collective bowels in their pants when they saw Nixon forced out of office by the populus, such a thing to them was unheard of, unimaginable even. The culture is very different. The difference now is that the cultural difference has become the motivation, not the political difference, which used to be the motivating factor. And i think that Bush's reelection reflects this, he was chosen because he fits the cultural beliefs of the majority of Americans, whereas Kerry fits the cultural beliefs of the majority of Europeans.

 

[setAI]

Actually since 2000 the states bush won had increased in population more than the states that Gore/Kerry won. Had Bush won exactly the same state he won in 2000 he would have had 7 more electoral votes than he did then.

this data is irrelevant when considering that many Red States were only red becasue their urban votes where just short of their rural votes- but in the near future cities like Columbus/ Indianapolis/ Denver/ Des Moines/etc will grow past the populations of all their state's rural precincts- the global trend of civilization is becoming exponentially more urban since the modern era began- it simply cannot be denied that within ageneration the overwhelming majority of Americans will live in large cities-

 

[franznietzsche]

this data is irrelevant when considering that many Red States were only red becasue their urban votes where just short of their rural votes- but in the near future cities like Columbus/ Indianapolis/ Denver/ Des Moines/etc will grow past the populations of all their state's rural precincts- the global trend of civilization is becoming exponentially more urban since the modern era began- it simply cannot be denied that within ageneration the overwhelming majority of Americans will live in large cities-

Actually since the human era began.

 

[BobG]

Bush's victory winds up a little short of a mandate for his policies. In fact, it only took one day for the battle over what the Republican Party stands for to start.

Arlen Specter has already made it clear he doesn't consider Bush's victory a mandate to appoint Supreme Court Justices that would overturn Roe vs. Wade (although Specter's nickname is RINO - Republican in name only). The clue as to how much of a mandate Bush really will come from whether or not Specter is bumped out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I think he got a stern warning privately about his comments, but there hasn't been any Republican Senators coming out against his comments.

Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel both had some negative comments about the situation in Iraq right in the middle of the campaign. They are much more mainstream Republicans with key committee seats and neither received any flack for their comments. In fact, Lugar's comments pretty much opens the door for any Republican congressman to stand up against Bush.

Bush will get his economic policies through, provided he at least recognizes there is a debt and shows some restraint, but I don't think Republican majorities in both branches of Congress are as meaningful as might seem. The conservative Christian wing may have showed they can flex their muscles, but quite a few Republican Congressmen don't have enough faith in the right wing's durability to stake the party image on them.

 

[GENIERE]

Bush's victory winds up a little short of a mandate for his policies…

With gains in the Senate, the House, Governors and many state legislatures, how can it not be considered a mandate?

…In fact, it only took one day for the battle over what the Republican Party stands for …Arlen Specter has already made it clear he doesn't consider Bush's victory a mandate to appoint Supreme Court Justices that would overturn…

Specter later clarified his statement negating your point.

Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel both had some negative comments…

Republicans are not (usually) in lock step spouting the daily talking points; McCain makes a career of it.

…They are much more mainstream Republicans with…

You and I may differ on what defines mainstream. Those that profess tenets similar to the President’s, I consider mainstream.

…Bush will get his economic policies through, provided he at least recognizes there is a debt and shows some restraint…

He does and he will. The debt incurred under the President’s Administration is not a big problem, there’s been much bigger without immediate consequence. The US debt has accumulated over the last 50-60 years to be extremely dangerous and must be attended to. The best way to decrease debt is to grow the economy the way JFK did it, lower taxes.

…I don't think Republican majorities in both branches of Congress are as meaningful as might seem. The conservative Christian wing may have showed they can flex their muscles, but quite a few Republican Congressmen don't have enough faith in the right wing's durability to stake the party image on them…

If you are basing that statement on exit polls, the polls determined that of the voters who responded yes to the moral issue (22%), 79% of those voted for the President, or about 16%. It is not the big factor the media is trying to lead us to believe, nor can we put any trust in the exit polls.

 

[BobG]

I thought Specter spoke quite clearly. His 'clarification' is why I think someone had told him he'd better take a more low profile approach. (At least he didn't claim he'd been misquoted in his autobiography).

I felt the number of amendments banning gay marriage made a stronger statement than the exit polls. The religous right did make a strong statement that you can only push so far before you get a united push back. While they have some legitimate beefs (anti-religion court cases have reached the point of absurdity), having them as the main driving force of the Republican Party is disturbing. You'd lose a large segment of Republicans, me included.

Who knows. Maybe they aren't as significant as all that, anyway. Bush originally courted the gay Log Cabin Republicans, claimed he would pursue a humble foreign policy, not one that looked towards nation building. Maybe he'll dump the religous right, as well, now that he's done with them.

And, admittedly, I tend towards the more moderate side of the Republican Party.

 

[BobG]

One reason I fear the religous right becoming the driving force behind the Republican Party. They've tended to ally themselves with the wrong causes, especially some of the Southern coalitions.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/04/alabama.segregation/index.html

Moore and the Christian Coalition argued that repealing the segregationist 1956 amendment would open the door to court-ordered tax increases for education.

Despite the narrow margin, Christian Coalition chief John Giles declared victory.

"The Christian Coalition of Alabama will work to ensure that reckless trial lawyers and activist judges will not be able to open the floodgates to increase taxes and that private, Christian, parochial and home-school families will be protected," Giles said in a statement on the group's Web site.

To be fair, Giles also added:

"The Christian Coalition will lead the way to remove the racist language in the next election."

 

[schwarzchildradius]

He's going to get what he wants. Flat tax of 15% (exactly the same that is in place in Iraq), no tax on capital gains. Privatized social security, the privatization (which will cost trillions) paid for with borrowed money. Falling dollar, rising oil prices. Bloated, wasteful, militaristic government.
He's not going to start any more wars, but we will be fighting in Iraq for four moree years.

He's not going to get outlawed abortion, prayer in public school, gay marriage ban, because he doesn't believe in any of that, that was just a trick.

Luckily, when the Democrats lost, the demagogical radicals lost their scapegoat; therefore the responsibility and guilt for the catastrophic events that lie ahead rests with the extremists who triggered them.

 

[wasteofo2]

Luckily, when the Democrats lost, the demagogical radicals lost their scapegoat; therefore the responsibility and guilt for the catastrophic events that lie ahead rests with the extremists who triggered them.

I doubt it. I saw a representative of the Bush campaign and one from the Kerry campaign doing a town hall style question and answer thing on CNN, and someone asked something about what Bush'll do to make the economy better. And the Bush representative said that when you're talking about the economy, you have to remember, that when George Bush came into office, he was handed the worst economy since the great depression. Luckily, there were lots of boos from the audience, so the public isn't TOTALLY blind, but these guys will try anything to get out of taking responsibility for their mess ups.

 

[franznietzsche]

I doubt it. I saw a representative of the Bush campaign and one from the Kerry campaign doing a town hall style question and answer thing on CNN, and someone asked something about what Bush'll do to make the economy better. And the Bush representative said that when you're talking about the economy, you have to remember, that when George Bush came into office, he was handed the worst economy since the great depression. Luckily, there were lots of boos from the audience, so the public isn't TOTALLY blind, but these guys will try anything to get out of taking responsibility for their mess ups.

Actually he was handed a bad economy. The tech bubble had collapsed at the end of the clinton administration, and all through 2001 things went downhill, before he had done anything (as Michael moore spent ten minutes pointing out in Fahrenheit 9/11). from 2002 on, things have been moving up, consistently if not rapidly. He cannot be blamed for the events of march 2000-june 2000 when the recession began, IIRC. Furthermore the president doesn't ahve any real power over the economy anyway. Not directly at least. And as i said, things have been steadily improving since 2002.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

Actually he was handed a bad economy.

Reeeeeely?
(1998) Lowest peacetime unemployment rate since 1957; (1998) first budget surplus since 1969; (1999) highest stock market index in history.
Earned-income tax credits, college scholarships, family leave for workers, capital gains tax cut (1997)

from 2002 on, things have been moving up, consistently if not rapidly.

If you're talking about the deficit, unemployment, and poverty-stricken children with no health insurance, you're right.

Furthermore the president doesn't ahve any real power over the economy anyway.

(1) establishing fiscal discipline, eliminating the budget deficit, keeping interest rates low, and spurring private-sector investment; (2) investing in people through education, training, science, and research; and (3) opening foreign markets so American workers can compete abroad.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

Also:
Largest Surplus Ever (FY2000); Largest Three-Year Debt Pay-Down Ever; Lower Federal Government Spending (22.2% in 1992 to 18% in 2000); Reduced Interest Payments on the Debt; Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote; Negotiated the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997; Dedicated the Surplus to Save Social Security and Reduce the National Debt; Extended Medicare Solvency from 1999 to 2025.

Many of these benefits have since been recklessly & intentionally destroyed.

 

[Gokul43201]

from 2002 on, things have been moving up, consistently if not rapidly.

Depends on how you define up. Relative to absolute stagnation, or relative to average/expected growth ?

The job creation rate at least is only just keeping up with the population growth. That's not really a growth.

The growth in the stock market started only with the announcement of the Iraq War in Mar 2003. The DJ is up about 2% relative to Jan 2002, but up 30% from Feb 2003, fuelled in large part by the gains among Exxon-Mobil (up 50% since 02/03), Halliburton (up 100%) and other honchos in the energy and Defense contracting sectors. Pharmaceuticals, Infotech, Automotive and Consumer Goods have underperformed the Dow.

Yes, some things have picked up and gotten better...but not nearly as much as Don Evans or Scott McClellan have been suggesting.

 

[russ_watters]

Reeeeeely?
(1998) Lowest peacetime unemployment rate since 1957; (1998) first budget surplus since 1969; (1999) highest stock market index in history.
Earned-income tax credits, college scholarships, family leave for workers, capital gains tax cut (1997)

The statement you are trying to counter was that Bush was handed a bad economy. Meaning it was bad when he took office. So how do facts from 1-2-3 years before he took office help you any? How does the highest stock market in history in 1999 help you when the markets lost a sizeable fraction of their worth by the end of 2000?

No, it is a fact that Bush was handed an economy already in the crapper.

 

[loseyourname]

in 2004 they are stronger- but the populations of cities [blue areas]- particularly of minorities- are increasing exponentially while rural states/counties [red areas]will remain at the same population- by 2015-2020 the cities will represent 3/4s of the total population- people in rural areas are isolated from other cultures and beleifs and so aren't pressured to embrace them- but people in cities who have to live/work with other cultures and learn other ideas through the media/internet/schools learn to open their minds more- religiosity wains- it's a numbers battle that the right cannot win in the end- though they ride high now- it's their nadir



only for a little while longer- then the GOP won't have the numbers anymore- math is a *****

I wouldn't be too convinced of this if I were you. For one thing, most of the more democratic cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco) are pretty well saturated population-wise and any growth in the population of their metropolitan areas is only occurring at this point in far-off suburbs like south Orange County that are mostly republican. Furthermore, the cities that are still growing at a fast pace (Phoenix, Las Vegas, Kansas City) are not nearly as liberal as the older cities.