Originally Posted by JDG 66

... I've challenged Lefties to show the data on all the grandmothers (or disabled) who supposedly die in droves before the government got into the taxpayer-funded charity business.

The Donner Party doesn't count.

Still waiitng.

I suspect that the self-proclaimed One-Eyed God of Wisdom is woried that he won't be able to mooch off the taxpayers of MN for his so-called disability.

Note how the improvement in nutrition and the reduction in back-breaking toil has improved life expectancey, and you'll see your proof. Grandma and Grandpa tended to die young in the bad old days.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Note how the improvement in nutrition and the reduction in back-breaking toil has improved life expectancey, and you'll see your proof. Grandma and Grandpa tended to die young in the bad old days.

Check out a Gilded Age poem called "Over the hill to the poorhouse". Grandma and Grandpa end up in a bleak institutional setting where they are separated and kept under minimal conditions.

Actually, Glick is using one of his typical fallacious tricks here, asking for proof of an extreme result -- literal early death -- and ignoring all of the less extreme ones. Elder poverty in the days before Social Security and Medicare was a near-universal reality. Higher elder mortality was also a reality, but examining only that leaves most of the picture unseen.

This sort of thing is why he's on my ignore list. I do sometimes read his posts on an individual basis but only when he's talking about the military; there, he actually knows enough that he's less inclined to pull bullshit like this. On most subjects, he's simply not worth the bother.

Malaise Casts Shadow on '12 Vote
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEThirdStories

Is the 2012 election really going to be all about the economy? Which political party is going to convince the uncommitted swing state voters that it can fix our economy? Just trying to get this thread back on topic.

@Brian Rush - yes, the old media powerhouses are losing their appeal. I spoke with two different main street conservatives over the weekend who have both switched to Al Jazeera news because they think the coverage is better. My family switched to BBC America news last year, plus the Internet.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Actually, Glick... I do sometimes read his posts on an individual basis but only when he's talking about the military; there, he actually knows enough that he's less inclined to pull bullshit like this.

Individuals tend to have knowledge/expertise about particular topics. And much of the military discussion has been historical, and thus not involving today's issues.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It isn't, but it's less than half the size. It gets all the media coverage but has much less potential power.

538 has interesting poll results about a shift toward more Libertarian Views. I think the Tea Party is a more logical vehicle for the libertarian impulse than the left wing insurgency as the LI is more interested in expanded government power.

No doubt, we will find out as the election season progresses.

James50

James, the original Tea Party may have been libertarian, but today's Tea Party is anything but.

Libertarians and modern liberals would answer the second question the same way. The first question is sufficiently vague that the answer could be liberal or libertarian, depending on what the respondent thinks it means. For full understanding, it would be useful to have follow-up questions specifying exactly what functions the respondent thinks the government should fulfill and which ones should be left to individuals and businesses. Also, there are many areas where liberals don't want the government doing more, but rather want it to do differently. A good example is the protection of labor rights. A progressive position here would involve shifting regulations and penalties around to make it easier to form a union and harder to suppress the effort to do so. Another example is voting rights, where conservatives are trying to make it harder to register and vote and progressives want to make it easier. Another example is immigration reform. I could go on and on about this, but you see the point I'm sure. Progressivism can't be reduced to "having the government do more."

The areas where progressives do want more government action -- financial aid for college, infrastructure spending, a few other areas -- are generally balanced by areas where they want less, e.g. military spending and corporate subsidies. It would be interesting to find answer to specific questions such as, "should financial aid for college students be increased?" or "should the government spend more on repairing roads and bridges and improving the nation's transportation system?" In fact, let me quickly see if I can find polls about those things.

Well, here's something not too far off, although it's from last February and so positions could have changed. http://people-press.org/2011/02/10/s...ment-spending/ The poll broke the question of whether spending should be increased or decreased into specific areas. A clear majority favored increases in government spending for education, public schools, and veterans benefits. Pluralities approved of increased spending (that is, more said increase than either decrease or leave the same, although it was not a clear majority) for college financial aid, health care, and aid to the needy in the U.S. Military spending was evenly divided. The only category that got a clear plurality in favor of reducing spending was "aid to the world's needy," and even that didn't have majority approval for reducing spending.

Thank you for the tips about al-Jazeera and BBC America. I'm going to have to check those out.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Note how the improvement in nutrition and the reduction in back-breaking toil has improved life expectancey, and you'll see your proof. Grandma and Grandpa tended to die young in the bad old days.

-Irrelevant. Technology and nutrition improved long before Otto von Bismarck created the Nanny State.

Again, where were these poor old grandmothers, starving to death, naked in the streets?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Actually, Glick is using one of his typical fallacious tricks here, asking for proof of an extreme result -- literal early death -- and ignoring all of the less extreme ones. Elder poverty in the days before Social Security and Medicare was a near-universal reality. Higher elder mortality was also a reality, but examining only that leaves most of the picture unseen...

1) Asking for an example of a claim progressives always make when they're about to lose e.g., "SOMEONE is about to die, starving and naked in the snow covered streets" if we don't maintain (or increase) some taxpayer-funded charity program is not a "fallacious trick."

2) Elder poverty? By modern standards, EVERYONE was poor. Rockefeller couldn't even buy a cell phone. Old people didn't need anywhere near as much money as the young because it didn't cost very much to sit in a rocking chair all day and play checkers.

Improving standards in technology and medicine is due to advances promoted by a free market. You may notice that advances occur in rough relation to the extent free market principles are upheld. It's not a coincidence. Social Welfare programs are the beneficiary of the wealth created by a free market.

Sheesh.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Check out a Gilded Age poem called "Over the hill to the poorhouse". Grandma and Grandpa end up in a bleak institutional setting where they are separated and kept under minimal conditions.

-GB.

It's a poem...

Originally Posted by James50

538 has interesting poll results about a shift toward more Libertarian Views.

-Has Haymarket Draftdodger seen this?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

...This sort of thing is why he's on my ignore list. I do sometimes read his posts on an individual basis but only when he's talking about the military; there, he actually knows enough that he's less inclined to pull bullshit like this...

-Interesting. If you have me on "Ignore," how will you know I'm discussing something military related, hmmm?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Actually, Glick is using one of his typical fallacious tricks here, asking for proof of an extreme result -- literal early death -- and ignoring all of the less extreme ones. Elder poverty in the days before Social Security and Medicare was a near-universal reality. Higher elder mortality was also a reality, but examining only that leaves most of the picture unseen.

This sort of thing is why he's on my ignore list. I do sometimes read his posts on an individual basis but only when he's talking about the military; there, he actually knows enough that he's less inclined to pull bullshit like this. On most subjects, he's simply not worth the bother.

This latest meme from Glick of nobody suffers is a relative new one. As such, it does not yet merit treatment as a Glickism -

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...887#post377887

I will keep an eye on it and see how it develops. By defintion, one needs to kill this off and have it come back at a later date - a true Glickism should have its zombie characteristic.

Also, I got a ton of Glickisms to wade through before deciding which will get the honor of #2.

Originally Posted by playwrite

This latest meme from Glick of nobody suffers is a relative new one...

-And apparently effective, sice no Progessive can provide an example.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

"Increased polarization among the people in the country" ALSO doesn't answer what I was saying. It does not imply polarization by region. What happened with the Civil War was not simply that there was polarization, but that one side of the divide had a majority all across the south, and the other had a majority all across the north. If instead of that we had New York City being anti-slavery while upstate New York was pro-slavery, and rural Georgia being pro-slavery while Atlanta was anti-slavery, there'd have been no secession, because the pro-slavery forces would not have commanded a majority anywhere that could have seceded. Georgia could secede (and did). Rural Georgia couldn't secede and leave Atlanta part of the Union.

The way the divide is going now, there's no way that secession can happen. It's too much an urban-rural divide, and not enough a north-south or east-west or whatever divide. Once again, California conceivably might secede if there was any will for that, but Los Angeles by itself can't.

I got your points about that. You didn't get mine though. I don't think I'm being stubborn if I acknowledge your points.

Yes, individual states could seceed, and there might indeed be will for that. If polarization increases, it will increase within states as well as larger regions. And many landslide counties are located adjacent to each other, and in many cases this makes the voting in a state also a landslide in presidential elections.

Obama is a better candidate than Gore or Kerry were, so the Democrats are doing better, and will also do better in 2012. Whether there's a long-term trend of red states turning blue or not we'll have to see. It's possible, and of course I hope so. The 2008 election alone is not enough to tell though.

The Republicans in the states they won in 2010 are trying hard to consolidate their gains, hoping to keep them "in the red" so to speak. Now they are tightening requirements on who can vote.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I got your points about that. You didn't get mine though.

It's evident from this post that you didn't get my point -- or at least, you don't seem to understand the logical consequences.

Yes, individual states could seceed, and there might indeed be will for that. If polarization increases, it will increase within states as well as larger regions.And many landslide counties are located adjacent to each other, and in many cases this makes the voting in a state also a landslide in presidential elections.

That does not follow, and it's observably untrue in actual fact. The Southern states, for instance, are becoming less committed to the Republican Party, not more. That's happening as more immigrants move in from outside the South and as the South becomes more urban and less rural. I'm not going just by the 2006 and 2008 elections, but also by polls on issues. Landslide counties may be located adjacent to each other if -- and only if -- two adjacent counties are both rural or both urban. Or if they are landslide in opposite directions.

Take a look at what happened in California in 2008.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...CA2008Pres.svg

Red counties on this map voted for McCain, blue ones for Obama. The state as a whole went for Obama of course. Note that we have many instances of counties adjacent to one another being both red or both blue. But you also find plenty of counties of each color. (The blue ones dominate along the more-populous coastal areas, and of course Obama won the state by a large margin. But that doesn't mean there weren't local victories in California for McCain.) (Heh -- except for Orange County. But that was predictable.)

We are divided in this country by ideology. But we are not so divided by region as we have been in the past. That makes for some interesting dynamics, but secession isn't one of them.

Originally Posted by Odin

The TP will disappear when the Koch Family pulls the plug on it.

Precisely. Right-wing Populism poses the danger of becoming left-wing populism. The former may be useful for crushing liberal opposition to plutocracy, but the latter is downright revolutionary.

The Hard Right has been offering promises of unprecedented prosperity while downplaying the hardships that the common man will have to face. Although the Hard Right can easily grant bans on abortion and contraception (all the better to ensure more hostages to be threatened with hunger, and of course and a copious supply of cheap labor and cannon fodder two decades from now (or even one, especially if children are 'freed' from the 'oppression' of child-labor laws). But should the 'unprecedented prosperity' prove to be its complete absence for all but the well-born and well-connected, then any populist leader not under the thumb of the elites becomes a hazard by showing the potential to arouse resentment in people that a plutocratic system wishes to break once and for all.

We are like that frog floating comfortably in a pot water on the stove with the heat being turned up slowly. The Democratic Party has moved every so slowly over to the right that we didn't even notice. In fact some of us still think, at the worst, it is more centrist.

"The transformation began under Jimmy Carter, accelerated under Bill Clinton and has nearly been completed under Barack Obama. This is not your grandfather’s Democratic Party. It is your grandfather’s Republican Party of 1955."

A modest proposal stemming from the president's apparent rejection of his own party's liberal tradition

By Michael Lind
AP/Reuters

With the possible exception of Jon Huntsman, the Republican presidential field is weak on candidates who could appeal to centrist swing voters, including moderate Republicans. But there is one 2012 prospect who has a proven track record of pursuing policies that owe a great deal to the moderate Republican tradition and who could potentially shake up the race for the GOP presidential nomination: President Barack Obama.

If Obama chose to run for reelection not as a Democrat but as a moderate Republican, he could bring about two healthy transformations in the American political system. The moderate wing of the Republican Party could be restored. And the Democratic presidential nomination might be opened up to politicians from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

In the last generation, the old-fashioned moderate Republicans from New England and the Midwest symbolized by Nelson Rockefeller have been driven out of the GOP by the conservative followers of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Streaming into the Democratic Party as voters, and buying it with ample Wall Street cash as donors, this upscale elite has changed the party from a populist liberal alliance of unionized workers and populists into a socially liberal, economically conservative version of the old country-club Republicanism of the pre-Reagan era.
SNIP

Best of all, Obama could run on healthcare. "ObamaCare" after all was modeled on "RomneyCare" in Massachusetts and resembled the healthcare plan set forth in the 1990s by the conservative Heritage Foundation. Another model for the newly enacted healthcare system, based on individual mandates and subsidies to for-profit private insurance, was the plan that Lincoln Chafee, an old-fashioned Northeastern liberal Republican, put forth during the Clinton era healthcare debate. The pedigree of Obama’s healthcare program stretches all the way back to his true role model, Dwight Eisenhower, whose vice president, Richard Nixon, backed the Eisenhower’s administration plan to expand healthcare access by subsidizing private insurance rather than through universal social insurance like Medicare.

More: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/w...can/index.html

I'll start by saying that I really don't know anything about Jon Huntsman, a republican who is now in the race, so I can't debate or defend. But after reading an article on here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110621/...paign_huntsman
A few points stood out.

-He was an ambassador to China (which may come in handy)

-I appreciate his comment: "For the first time in our history, we are passing down to the next generation a country that is less powerful, less compassionate, less competitive and less confident than the one we got," Huntsman said. "This, ladies and gentlemen, is totally unacceptable and totally un-American."

-He has gray hair (just kidding on this).

Originally Posted by Deb C

We are like that frog floating comfortably in a pot water on the stove with the heat being turned up slowly. The Democratic Party has moved every so slowly over to the right that we didn't even notice. In fact some of us still think, at the worst, it is more centrist.

"The transformation began under Jimmy Carter, accelerated under Bill Clinton and has nearly been completed under Barack Obama. This is not your grandfather’s Democratic Party. It is your grandfather’s Republican Party of 1955."

A modest proposal stemming from the president's apparent rejection of his own party's liberal tradition

By Michael Lind
AP/Reuters

With the possible exception of Jon Huntsman, the Republican presidential field is weak on candidates who could appeal to centrist swing voters, including moderate Republicans. But there is one 2012 prospect who has a proven track record of pursuing policies that owe a great deal to the moderate Republican tradition and who could potentially shake up the race for the GOP presidential nomination: President Barack Obama.

If Obama chose to run for reelection not as a Democrat but as a moderate Republican, he could bring about two healthy transformations in the American political system. The moderate wing of the Republican Party could be restored. And the Democratic presidential nomination might be opened up to politicians from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

In the last generation, the old-fashioned moderate Republicans from New England and the Midwest symbolized by Nelson Rockefeller have been driven out of the GOP by the conservative followers of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Streaming into the Democratic Party as voters, and buying it with ample Wall Street cash as donors, this upscale elite has changed the party from a populist liberal alliance of unionized workers and populists into a socially liberal, economically conservative version of the old country-club Republicanism of the pre-Reagan era.
SNIP

Best of all, Obama could run on healthcare. "ObamaCare" after all was modeled on "RomneyCare" in Massachusetts and resembled the healthcare plan set forth in the 1990s by the conservative Heritage Foundation. Another model for the newly enacted healthcare system, based on individual mandates and subsidies to for-profit private insurance, was the plan that Lincoln Chafee, an old-fashioned Northeastern liberal Republican, put forth during the Clinton era healthcare debate. The pedigree of Obama’s healthcare program stretches all the way back to his true role model, Dwight Eisenhower, whose vice president, Richard Nixon, backed the Eisenhower’s administration plan to expand healthcare access by subsidizing private insurance rather than through universal social insurance like Medicare.

More: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/w...can/index.html

Wow, Deb...just saw that you already posted on Jon Huntsman. I should have read this first before I submitted my link. Thanks as always for the info.

Originally Posted by millennialX

Wow, Deb...just saw that you already posted on Jon Huntsman. I should have read this first before I submitted my link. Thanks as always for the info.

Hey, never a problem. If we read all of the posts in this forum before we posted, we would have to be super human.

Originally Posted by millennialX

I'll start by saying that I really don't know anything about Jon Huntsman, a republican who is now in the race, so I can't debate or defend. But after reading an article on here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110621/...paign_huntsman
A few points stood out.

-He was an ambassador to China (which may come in handy)

-I appreciate his comment: "For the first time in our history, we are passing down to the next generation a country that is less powerful, less compassionate, less competitive and less confident than the one we got," Huntsman said. "This, ladies and gentlemen, is totally unacceptable and totally un-American."

-He has gray hair (just kidding on this).

My deep concern is that he is another deficit hawk. Notice that he mentions/scapegoats Medicare and SS but never mentions taxing the rich or those loopholes for corporations. And those security concerns he mentions, appears like more big spending on military and the other economic implications of that so called war on terrorism.

This could possibly be a sign that he will want to balance the budget on the backs of the middle class and poor. While I need to read more about him and his positions, I have some real concerns. He was way too Orweillan for my taste.

This is what raised a red flag for me:

"We must make hard decisions that are necessary to avert disaster," the former Utah governor said, painting a bleak picture of what it would mean for the country if it does not reduce its debt load.
"If we don't, in less than a decade, every dollar of federal revenue will go to covering the costs of Medicare, Social Security and interest payments on our debt. Meanwhile, we'll sink deeper into debt for everything else - from national security to disaster relief," Huntsman said.

Originally Posted by Deb C

We are like that frog floating comfortably in a pot water on the stove with the heat being turned up slowly. The Democratic Party has moved every so slowly over to the right that we didn't even notice. In fact some of us still think, at the worst, it is more centrist.

"The transformation began under Jimmy Carter, accelerated under Bill Clinton and has nearly been completed under Barack Obama. This is not your grandfather’s Democratic Party. It is your grandfather’s Republican Party of 1955."

A modest proposal stemming from the president's apparent rejection of his own party's liberal tradition

By Michael Lind
AP/Reuters

With the possible exception of Jon Huntsman, the Republican presidential field is weak on candidates who could appeal to centrist swing voters, including moderate Republicans. But there is one 2012 prospect who has a proven track record of pursuing policies that owe a great deal to the moderate Republican tradition and who could potentially shake up the race for the GOP presidential nomination: President Barack Obama.

If Obama chose to run for reelection not as a Democrat but as a moderate Republican, he could bring about two healthy transformations in the American political system. The moderate wing of the Republican Party could be restored. And the Democratic presidential nomination might be opened up to politicians from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

In the last generation, the old-fashioned moderate Republicans from New England and the Midwest symbolized by Nelson Rockefeller have been driven out of the GOP by the conservative followers of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Streaming into the Democratic Party as voters, and buying it with ample Wall Street cash as donors, this upscale elite has changed the party from a populist liberal alliance of unionized workers and populists into a socially liberal, economically conservative version of the old country-club Republicanism of the pre-Reagan era.
SNIP

Best of all, Obama could run on healthcare. "ObamaCare" after all was modeled on "RomneyCare" in Massachusetts and resembled the healthcare plan set forth in the 1990s by the conservative Heritage Foundation. Another model for the newly enacted healthcare system, based on individual mandates and subsidies to for-profit private insurance, was the plan that Lincoln Chafee, an old-fashioned Northeastern liberal Republican, put forth during the Clinton era healthcare debate. The pedigree of Obama’s healthcare program stretches all the way back to his true role model, Dwight Eisenhower, whose vice president, Richard Nixon, backed the Eisenhower’s administration plan to expand healthcare access by subsidizing private insurance rather than through universal social insurance like Medicare.

More: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/w...can/index.html

Thanks Deb C, that is a fun article.

Obama’s speech to the Republican convention practically writes itself:

"I have fought against the failed tradition of New Deal liberalism from the strongest possible position -- the presidency. When the liberals wanted to nationalize the banks, I bailed them out and let their executives reap huge bonuses, thanks to the taxpayers. When the liberals wanted an expansion of Lyndon Johnson’s big government Medicare, I said no and pushed for a version of the Heritage Foundation’s healthcare coverage plan and what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts. When the liberals wanted a bigger stimulus, I drew the line in the sand. When the liberals criticized the Bowles-Simpson plan to gut Social Security and Medicare, I praised it. When the liberals demanded tougher action against Chinese mercantilist policies that hurt our manufacturing industries, I said no and sided with the U.S. multinationals that want to appease the Chinese government. When the liberals wanted America to withdraw from Afghanistan, I sided with the neoconservatives and ordered the surge. When the voices of the old, failed liberalism said that Congress has a part to play in authorizing foreign wars, I ignored that radical liberal assault on unchecked, arbitrary presidential power and ordered the U.S. to war in Libya on my own authority."

You can already hear the thunder of the standing ovation in the Republican convention hall, when Barack Obama declares: "America needs a president who can stand up to the kind of Wall Street-bashing, big-government, Franklin Roosevelt liberalism that thinks that three wars at one time are too many -- and my record in the White House proves that I am that president."

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

We are divided in this country by ideology. But we are not so divided by region as we have been in the past. That makes for some interesting dynamics, but secession isn't one of them.

Unless the blue side that wants secession outvotes the red side that doesn't; or vice versa. And the trend of people from each ideology moving to ideologically-compatible states continues. Then secession is in the dynamic. If the trend you mention continues of more immigration to southern and western states continues, then it might not be.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Unless the blue side that wants secession outvotes the red side that doesn't; or vice versa. And the trend of people from each ideology moving to ideologically-compatible states continues.

Do you have any evidence that ideological relocation is happening on a scale that would outweigh economic relocation? That's the only way what you describe would be happening.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Unless the blue side that wants secession outvotes the red side that doesn't; or vice versa...

-FWIW, states could split during a civil war. That's why we have WV & VA, not just VA. There were also strong splits in:

MD: Union west vs. Rebel eastern shore & Baltimore;

KY: Rebel west vs. the rest (sort of, even the eastern part was a little mixed);

TN: Unionist east (except Knoxville and Chattanooga) vs. the rest (sort of);

MO: Unionist northwest vs. Rebel Missouri/Mississippi Riversides (except Unionist St. Louis);

TX: Union-tilting west vs. solid Rebel east (the Rio Grande was mixed);

FL: Solid Rebel north vs. Union-tilting south.

Even NC, GA, AL, and AR had Union tilting areas in the Appalachians and the Ozarks, and WV had Rebels (the WV fields of Hatfields vs. McCoys fame were Confederates during the war).

There were differences in AWI as well. Philly tended to be collaborationist (Quakers), the "backwoods" patriot. Now, in AWI, there were shifts in population by ideology e.g., NYC got a large chunk of the Tory population, but that was after the shooting started.

I see you guys are still fantasizing about the Civil War of 2020. Take a chill pill, you two.

Blue would lose anyway.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-well:



-Disabled people will die on the streets! Ha ha ha!

I've challenged Lefties to show the data on all the grandmothers (or disabled) who supposedly die in droves before the government got into the taxpayer-funded charity business.

The Donner Party doesn't count.

Still waiitng.

I suspect that the self-proclaimed One-Eyed God of Wisdom is woried that he won't be able to mooch off the taxpayers of MN for his so-called disability.

A bit more than a century ago, the norm was for industrial workers to be worn-out wrecks in their late 30s and dead some time before 50. They were starting families early, but they rarely got to be grandparents before the Grim Reaper got them. 70-hour workweeks in mines or steel mills were not good for longevity. Sure, there were plenty of opiates and much booze, often in the form of 'medicines' for 'catarrh' -- medicines that masked the damage of toil, injuries, and disease.

And the children were following the family tradition of being used up quickly, starting industrial and mining careers while still children.

From 70-hour workweeks and 40-year lifespans to 40-hour workweeks and 70-year lifespans -- such is progress. Likewise working-class kids graduating from high school.

Oh, yes -- disabled people were simply cast off.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Do you have any evidence that ideological relocation is happening on a scale that would outweigh economic relocation? That's the only way what you describe would be happening.

Just what I reported before; articles in major national magazines that showed significant migration of young intelligensia out of red states, and migration of those who don't like cultural diversity out of blue states. At the moment I don't know which relocation, economic or ideological, is stronger. But they are both recent trends that might continue in future years.

The real issue for elections and politics in America, is how entrenched it is in polarization. The USA cannot continue with the political system it has now without becoming a second or third-rate power by the time this 4T is over. The main theme of it has to be to break through this deadlock. Moderate pundits will say we need a moderate third party; those on the left like us might hope for a liberal third party or a revolutionary movement. But it seems clear that if this nation has an ounce of spark left in it (and in the younger generation I think it still does, and perhaps in some older Boomers still willing to be leaders as they are supposed to be), then that spark is going to ignite before this 4T is over in the late 2020s, and explode this deadlocked political system. I tend to think major systemic changes will be needed, and will happen. I think they all will be on the table, but which ones are adopted will be decided in the course of events.

This systemic political change will not be the only change needed either; it will be driven by the issues, which is another long list. But since NO issue will be dealt with unless the political system changes, and changes radically, I would list these as possibilities.

1. One or several parties displace the Republican Party as 2nd party, and perhaps also the Democratic Party as first party. Proportional representation and ranked-choice voting will be set up to facilitate the power of other parties (and perhaps more than 3 of them) besides the current corrupt and non-functional duopoly.

2. Several states might seceed, leading to further secessions, and a number of them might form red or blue coalitions. A looser federation or a mutual trade and foreign-policy cooperative will be developed in North America. By the way, I think smaller nations, not larger ones, are the route to an eventual workable world federation; not big nations like the USA that inevitably dominate it.

3. Our current elected-king, commander-in-chief system will be updated to a parliamentary system, like most democracies have-- and that even we the USA set up as the new system in our Iraq colony.

4. Radical new rules to take money out of politics and make campaigns freely transmitted over our media.

5. Better world institutions that are enabled to break through national sovereignty to deal with issues like climate change.

6. Changes in the way corporations are chartered, with requirements of social responsibility added.

7. The way our Senate currently does business will change, with more power given to the majority.

That our current political system needs to be replaced, is a given. The question is, with what.