Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Why are the liberals always out to win the popularity contest?

Ah, because it wins elections.

Silly us.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

That she has, but in 2016 she'll be: 69. Which is right around the age that McCain was. She'll be pushing 70 in four years time. And the only president to date to have won an election at that age was Reagan--and Clinton has nowhere near the amount of charisma he did to pull off a win.

And you can bet with all the youthful party members being put on display at the 2012 RNC that the Republicans will have one of them groomed for election in 2016. It'll probably come down to Rand Paul, Mark Rubio, Paul Ryan, or maybe even Chris Christie.



There are a lot more Republican candidates out there than Mrs. Palin. I just named four who are my guess for the 2016 Republican Party nomination.



He's also a millstone, because the country doesn't like to think that it's voting in the same families over and over again (even if Bush was related to 16 other presidents), it pretty soon takes a resemblance to another political system we broke away from.



Again, that depends on how the next 4 years go.

Scenario 1: Somehow everything goes right for Mr. Obama, he has a bit of trouble with Republicans in Congress for the first two years of his second term, but in mid-term election somehow they're all voted out and the US recovers fully. Somehow at the last minute--when all hope seems lost--Europe finds a way to solve its financial crisis, and China decides to continue its economic growth. Netenyaouh doesn't go batshit crazy on Iran, the Middle East remains an ambiguous quagmire, but we deal with them less and less as cleaner, greener technologies are depended upon as Obama focuses on infrastructure and resurrects the CCC and WPA. Hillary might win an election in 2016 as a "keeper of the Obama tradition", but we all know the history of political parties who win three elections in a row: she wouldn't get re-elected in 2020. It would invoke the Jackson-Van Burean/Roosevelt-Taft/Reagan-Bush law of successors from previous successful presidencies. However, most likely after having 8 years of a Democrat in power, the public would most likely vote a Republican in just to bring "balance" back into the equation. Especially considering the Republican Xers Hillary would be up against who are much more charismatic than she is. American High round II starts.

Scenario 2: Obama is re-elected, but the Republicans in the Congress want blood for losing the election and effectively continue to kick the can down the road and block any and all actions of government, hoping for a repeat of 2010 in 2014--and actively working for it. The European financial crisis continues to get worse (as it looks currently), which puts a dent on the current "recovery". China releases its five-year economic plan which is to downgrade its rate of growth for the next five years (hint--I've heard word that this one is actually going to happen), which puts another dent in our current "recovery". Israel suddenly and shockingly attacks Iran without warning, forcing Obama to commit more troops to another foreign war, just after getting us out of Afghanistan. Only this war is a bit worse as a rogue Israel makes every other Middle Eastern country united in wanting its defeat--effectively making the moderate Muslims disappear and bringing the extremists to the front in all the Arab Spring countries. And here we are, essentially fighting off the entire Middle East. Europe is too absorbed in its own financial problems to do anything. Russia and China meanwhile play both sides, trying to profit from the situation as best they can. Essentially this leaves Obama in a state worse than Hoover and ensures a surefire win for the Republicans in 2016--demographic change or no demographic change. And I can bet you, by 2016 that that Republican won't be some moderate wannabe conservative rich boy from Massachusetts like Romney, that it'll be a dyed in the wool full out conservative Xer who'll have much more charisma and bankroll off of the dislike for Obama.

Scenario 2a. The Republicans fail to have a repeat of 2010 in 2014 (somehow?) and we devolve into a Civil War of sorts. It's bloody at first as the battles are waged in every state, eventually though the Republicans coalesce in the South reforming the CSA. And the Democrats coalesce in the North & Mid-West, keeping the USA or a variation thereof. The West says "screw you guys" and becomes PSA & RMSA. And the former USA stays fragmented as no one would want to force us all back together again this time. Too often I've heard sentiments of "we should've let the south secede when we had the chance" on this board and in real life.

Scenario 3 - Romney is elected and everything goes like in Scenario 1. Thus ensuring his re-election in 2016. Somehow Romney is able to contain his desires to go to war with Iran, as is Israel--thus keeping us from getting entangled in an even more costly war. Because I just about guarantee that we're going to war with Iran if Romney wins--call it a very confident gut feeling. Another difference being he has an easier time with Congress (until the mid-term elections) and is able to depend less on foreign oil by opening Alaska up for drilling. Green energy is not focused on at all. Gilded Age III starts.

Scenario 4 - Romney is elected and everything goes like in Scenario 2... in fact it would probably be worse as Romney would not only encourage Israel to strike Iran, he might even get the silly idea in his head to make the first strike himself, which would potentially start WWIII if Russia and China decide to get involved and pledge to curb and contain "US aggression" throughout the world. And the world is more likely to go along with them as Romney isolates potential allies with smug gaffes (like the one he let slip in England during the London Olympics) as they're sick and tired of what looks to be an elitist and overly aggressive US that has been playing a game of invasion for the past decade and a half and has turned from the "global police dog" to the "global bully". That ensures a bloody and destructive global war that comes to US shores. That is when you can start bringing up Candyland dreams of Hillary winning by a landslide in 2016, if there's anything left of the country by that point.

Those are the five scenarios most likely to occur. Of the five, #1 is least likely to occur given how the rest of the world is looking to evolve and the Republican Congress is less likely to be "willing to work" with Obama--at least with those retribution bound Tea Party and Boomer Republicans in office. #2 or #4 seem the most likely to occur at this point. #3 is simply wishful thinking. #2a. is a worse case scenario that's just a tad more likely to occur than #1.

~Chas'88

Rand Paul, Mark Rubio, Paul Ryan, or maybe even Chris Christie. - I and all Progressives are salivating over any one of those prospects!

a lot more Republican candidates out there than Mrs. Palin. I just named four Ah, I was talking about a woman being on the ticket. Do you have some inside info that one of your four is planning a sex change? I'm sure that will pick up some votes but it might loss a lot of Catholics - unless maybe its Ryan making the change.

family dynasties well, in addition that recent history proves you wrong, you just eliminated the GOP's best shot in Jeb. Whatever, your's is just conjecture.

scenarios - at their heart, each of your scenarios assume that a Presidency and the electorate are essentially mindless creatures buffeted about by events they cannot control. Obama's re-election shows a growing sophistication by the electorate that it's not the cards you're dealt, it's how you play them; or, more importantly, at election time, how you're going to play them.

Moreover, the electorate is coming to realize that it wasn't what has happen in the last 4 years or even the last 10, it's what has been going on for decades and that is an indication of how long its going to take to dig our way out. One would think that folks coming to this forum would be the first to have figured that out, but we do have our share of stragglers.

candyland I wasn't specifically referring to the chances for Hillary; I was specifically referring to the mythical notion of the Boomers being less politically powerful by 2016 - that is a part of Xer, and apparently some Millies, magic pony land wish that Boomers disappear tomorrow. That's not going to happen by 2016, maybe not even by 2026 - Boomers may begin to dwindle in absolute numbers , but they are entering the age that is most active at the voting booths.

Also, they may coalesce around issues of not only their own retirement and health but also of helping the grandkids say with student loan forgiveness. Much of what elderly voters have been voting for has been driven by the Silents (the same ones who did the whole mid-life crisis); elderly Boomers are going to be very different kind of voter. There's a Progressive window for the elderly voting block that's coming.... before the F-everyone-else Xers come along and hit the old rockiing chairs.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

LOL not much to disagree with there, but there is one boomer woman who fits the profile and is possibly about to get a whole lot of experience in D.C.: Elizabeth Warren. Now, she doesn't have things like 'Walmart Board of Directors' on her resume, but she does seem to excite millennials in a way that Hilary can't.

Getting millennials out to vote is going to be an important point for anyone who wants to win, and that is only going to become more true until the next prophets come around. I doubt Obama's squishy-center attitude is going to win him the same millie enthusiasm as last time, but we won't know the details until after the election.

Put me down as somebody who wants Warren to be President.

The people pushing Hilary are:

1. Older folks, often Boomer women.

2. Establishment Beltway folks.

JPT, for all your hatred of Boomers, you sure act like them.

About that three-term limit for party in the White House rule: there are two historical exceptions. The Republicans won every presidential election from 1860 until 1888, when Grover Cleveland broke their streak. (Andrew Johnson was a Democrat but was only elected Vice-President.) (And although Lincoln didn't run on the GOP ticket in 1864, everyone knew he was a Republican.) That's SEVEN consecutive wins.

Also, the Democrats won every election from 1932 to 1948. That's FIVE consecutive wins.

Note what Turning each of those long streaks started in.

All bets are off.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

A lot of left-wingers love to salivate over the idea of the Republicans disappearing, but if it happens it won't be for the reasons they want it to be. It will be because the country is more conservative than its "ruling elite", and there is no conservative party to represent it.

The idea that the national center is actually to the right of the preposterous travesty that the party of Lincoln has become is so absurd that even you can't possibly believe it. Can you?

But that's for another day. If Romney wins and the Republicans take over the Senate, the GOP establishment will continue to survive by its fingernails.

Neither of those is going to happen. The question now is whether the Republicans will lose the House. Not ready to call that yet.

But long-term, the question about the GOP is whether it has become so locked in to extreme positions that it is unable to shift with the electorate and the times as it did in the last Crisis. I'm a little uncomfortable with that idea, but it's looking more and more likely.

Thing is, in the last Crisis we didn't have social issues playing such a heavy role. Everything was about the economy except for Prohibition, and after the Democrats pushed through the 20th amendment the Republicans basically said "meh" and it was all about laissez-faire versus New Deal, and a bit later isolationism versus intervention. It was possible for the Republicans, after a few defeats, to accept the basic New Deal premise as the new status quo and come out for moderate interventionism.

If the GOP can do the equivalent this time, they'll be the likely ones to elect our next Eisenhower. But right now, Eisenhower couldn't be nominated. And if they cling to their unpopular social-issue positions, the party will go down the drain. If that happens, the Democrats will split, and we'll have a new conservative party formed from a combination of the conservative Democrats and the moderate Republicans. This may make for a politically more confused late Crisis/early High than if the Republicans come to their senses and recover. Either way, though, we're not going to see lasting one-party dominance by the Democrats.

In Ohio -

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...0,240398.story

Romney cites his healthcare law as proof of his compassion

TOLEDO, Ohio — Mitt Romney, while campaigning in Ohio on Wednesday, highlighted the healthcare law that he passed while governor of Massachusetts as proof of his empathy for people.

“I think throughout this campaign as well, we talked about my record in Massachusetts, don't forget — I got everybody in my state insured,” Romney told NBC News in an interview before he headlined a rally here. “One hundred percent of the kids in our state had health insurance. I don't think there's anything that shows more empathy and care about the people of this country than that kind of record.”

The healthcare law is controversial among conservatives because it included a mandate that nearly every state resident purchase the insurance or be fined; it served as the model of the federal healthcare law that is Obama’s signature act as president, and that is an anathema to many Republicans.

This may have something to do with an observation made last night by a guy name Chris Rock -

Polls getting so bad for Mitt Romney this morning I saw a guy scraping a Romney bumper sticker off his car. It was Paul Ryan. #GOP2012
— @chrisrockoz via web

Why many in samples do not identify with the GOP.

Originally Posted by The Moderate Voice

By now the Republican litany of complaints against pollsters has become a chorus of desperation. The old adage holds true – if all or most of the polls are against you, you are probably losing. The suggestion that pollsters are using incorrect samples is one that is employed by both sides in the last weeks of a losing campaign. And while there are occasional poor polls with shoddy methodologies or genuinely sloppy demographic screens, most pollsters know how to find a representative sample. There are ways to intentionally skew a poll one way or another – question wording, question order, dubious “likely voter” screens, etc. – but most polling outfits know how to construct a questionnaire that yields something reflecting actual voter sentiment.

That said, there is one area of the polling world that still comes in for controversy – Party ID. Quite simply, we do not know if Party identification really does bounce around or if it is a stable metric like income or religion. The reality is that it depends on how you define party ID and how you use it. Applying a rigid party ID screen is likely to produce some strange and inaccurate results, even though party identification doesn’t really bounce around all that much...

...Embarrassed Independents – These are the voters who typically think of themselves as belonging to one party, but are sufficiently repulsed and/or embarrassed by their party’s candidate and/or the partisan supporters that they tell pollsters that they are Independents. BUT – they do still plan to vote for their party’s candidate in spite of the embarrassing antics of the campaign – usually out of a “gotta keep the other side in check” sentiment. Or a “maybe the adults will take over again when the silly campaign is over” feeling. Think of longstanding moderate Republicans who like the Romney that ran Massachusetts but are turned off by the rightward tilt of the party. They call themselves Independents now though they will vote Republican. For now. In the future they may stay as Independent Leaners. Or maybe even become Swinging Independents. Or eventually cross to the other side. But that takes time, and for now they will quietly pull the lever for Romney in spite of what the GOP has become.

In non-weighed polls of late, these Latent Partisans show up as sudden Democrats. And these Embarrassed Independents are represented as declining Republicans. And so you can get a sample with a large Democratic party ID lean that accurately reflects the electorate as many mostly-apolitical Indies become Democrats and embarrassed Romney Republicans declare themselves to be Independents.

Now think about what happens when you specifically weigh Party ID, and peg it to some larger, static ratio. You not only lose the Latent Partisans. You actually end up overcompensating among Independents for the other side. As latent left-leaning Indies go to the Dem side, they get removed from the sample. As embarrassed Republicans move to the Indie category, they replace the lost Latents. But when you insist that Party ID is constant, you have to make up the difference by oversampling hard partisan Republicans so as to keep the D-I-R split at the constant ratio.

This is why Rasmussen’s tracker keeps leaning so Republican while every other pollster does not. Rasmussen uses a strict Party ID screen that they re-set only once a month. Leaning Partisans are thrown out. Embarrassed Romneyites replace them in the Indie pool. And the poll compensates by artificially including more Republican Partisans. Presumably, a re-set party ID screen in early October will capture the movement of Latents and Embarrasseds and so will correct this error.

But don’t fall for the cry of biased or unweighted Party ID samples. There’s a reason Party ID samples have skewed Democratic of late. Pretending otherwise is not scientific. It’s just a form of denial that will inevitably lead to disappointment.

Denial.
And it's also a form of bargaining.
The depression and anger come in November.
Acceptance by the start of the 1T. :

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Ryan/Rubio is a good early bet, but who knows. Purely hypothetical at this point.



If Obama wins, things would have to be going extremely well in 2016 for a Democrat to be elected. It's highly unlikely. If Romney wins, and things are going badly, Hillary would have a strong chance. I would bet against her ever being president at this point, for a number of reasons.

Figure that Barack Obama has a Presidency analogous to the first two terms of FDR because that is about where we are in the generational cycle. Like FDR, Obama has chosen to meld the better parts of an Idealist generation with the better parts of a Reactive generation -- which may be the best approach possible. He could never ride the ideology of the Religious Right but he could never succeed as a politician or as a political leader on the alienation of the less-reputable parts of a Reactive generation. "Pragmatic optimist" is the best that anyone could be.

At this point I would not bet on any personality. Alternatives abound among both Democrats and Republicans.

There will not be a Civil War. Think about what happened in the 1860s. You had the states divided over a single controversial issue, more or less 50-50, and also evenly split geographically. Half the states declared they were seceding, built up an army, and attempted to forcibly expel the federal government from their territory. The conditions do not exist for anything remotely like that to happen today. It is simply not possible. If some kind of violence broke out, all levels of government, both parties, and the overwhelming majority of the population would be united in stamping it out. You have the wrong nightmare scenario in mind. I'm going to break down in very clear terms what's going on, and what things will look like if the Democratic Party, as it is currently constituted, achieves the kind of "permanent victory" (hyperbole deleted).

The cultural divides must weaken, and the polarization must abate if America is to get through this 4T well. The hotheads of the Left have been irrelevant since Reagan was President. The hotheads of the Right necessitate a similar smackdown. The cultural detritus of the 3T must die and the better parts of the 3T need to be preserved. Good riddance to the Bloods, Crips, and the alienated militias.

The United States has been eroding from within since the "cultural revolution" of the 1960s.

You obviously don't go out much. If by 'cultural revolution' you mean the worst of the Boom Awakening -- it is gone. If you mean the powerful rock and R&B music and the thoughtful folk music -- it is going to be looked upon sympathetically for years. The detritus vanishes because people don't want their kids exposed to 'that stuff'. What you ignore is that the good and bad of the recent 3T are not yet sorted out; much of the worst rot still has constituencies.

The modern Democratic Party is cultivating an underclass of single mothers on welfare and unemployable males, and they are increasing that population by pressing cultural "liberalism" from the top down, and importing fresh poverty from abroad to be ushered into that same underclass culture. If the destruction of "traditional morality" continues to spread as it has been, we will soon reach a tipping point where Margaret Thatcher's concise observation comes true: "The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money". It is already happening, which is why the economy has become a basket case. Many Americans are simply not employable, and not well-educated enough to hold the jobs the economy is producing. And no amount of spending on education is going to change it, because it is the result of a growing culture of dependency and dissolution, drug abuse, single mothers, and blaming all problems on somebody else (specifically, whoever votes for the Republicans). The "emerging Democratic majority" that the Democrats are pursuing is built on a false assumption: that you can have the majority of the population siphoning off the productivity of a minority of educated, productive citizens and still have a prosperous, advanced modern economy. You can't.

The trends contradict you. Teen pregnancies have been going downward for a very long time. Keep girls in school, and they have incentives to avoid getting knocked up without marriage, and -- as significantly, not getting married at 15 or 16, having a child, and getting a divorce as the marriage sours as teen marriages usually do with the woman getting stuck with a child for which she is ill-prepared. Such may not have the stigma that used to be applied to out-of-wedlock marriages, but the effects are often much the same. The immigrants that we are getting from parts of the world other than Latin America come as a rule from educational elites, and those from Latin America assimilate quickly into the better norms of America. Much of our poverty is born and bred here, and it is culturally immobile.

As for 'employability', many people are finding that what used to be employable skills are no longer welcome -- and this applies across the spectrum of occupations from raw labor to highly-honed educated professions. We are getting higher productivity with lesser need for inputs of labor. Our technological marvels have given us more capacity to make things while making the people who make those things at best expendable and at worst worthless. Our institutions and our long-held assumptions are in need of major changes if they are to allow the dignity of human existence. The alternatives to a resolution of a contradiction between economic plenty and human degradation present themselves as either nightmare or apocalypse.

If the Democrats were socially conservative, as they were in the days of FDR, they might be able to square the circle. Bill Clinton at least had some minor grasp of the need for balance, by pursuing welfare reform and being "tough on crime" (at least symbolically). But the way they are going now, they are creating a house of cards that cannot stand. They think they want to be like Europe. But what they are creating will not be like Europe, and the European model itself is collapsing as we speak. Simply put, if the Democrats get their way, before long there will be nobody to pay for the system they're trying to create. There will be nobody to make it run, because nobody will know how to operate the machinery of a modern economy. Instead of building up those at the bottom by encouraging good behavior and teaching the "traditional values" that lead to success, they are driving more and more people down into the underclass. In the short term it may get them votes and win them elections. But the inevitable economic decline that results from it is already upon us. If there is not a dramatic reversal, and soon, what we are seeing now in the economy is not going to reverse. It's going to get much, much worse.

We already show signs of systemic failure. The solution is not to be found in the wish-fulfillment of our economic elites at the expense of us all. "I've got mine, $crew you!" is hardly the foundation of a wholesome relationship (so long as people have alternatives) or of social peace if people have none. It's easy to see Boomer pathologies in the narcissism of people who have never known any challenges to their 'sacred' egos as is typical in our economic and much of our political elite. It's easy to see that our economic elite would expect politicians to act as their servants just like their domestic help, except to endure no poverty so long as they behave properly. The politicians that those elites choose are no less servile than their gardeners and nannies.

I see nothing 'soft on crime' about the Obama Administration. This has not been a good time in which to be a terrorist, a drug trafficker, a child molester, or a street crook. You are dealing with a community organizer, someone who surely knew the raw side of urban life and has a different set of assumptions about criminal behavior (few people do the bulk of crime) than someone whose legal career began defending insurance companies from staged 'accidents' or enforcing debts between hard-luck purchasers of schlock furniture.

I've said it many times before, and I'll say it again: children being born out of wedlock and raised in single parent homes is the single biggest crisis facing America today. It is a trend that is growing, not shrinking. If it does not reverse, the economy and society will completely collapse. It's not even arguable. It's going to happen. It is already happening.

The wrecked institutions that used to share the wealth well and now don't bring ruin to so many, whatever their origins.

2. There will not be a "war" with Iran. If something happens, it will be strategic bombing. There will be no ground forces, and no attempt at "regime change". Not going to happen, regardless of who wins in November. The bombing may very well happen, again, regardless of who wins in November.

Time is running out for that before the November election.

When it comes to actual plausible scenarios in the short term future, these are the only ones available:

1. Romney wins and the economy improves. If this happens, the Democrats will be back where they were in the 1980s. Their ideology will have been discredited and repudiated, but they will likely be able to make some gains in Congress and at the state level with more moderate candidates. They'll regroup as they did before, and eventually produce a more centrist "product" that can get them back on track.

We shall see in November. He has all but promised a return to the economic policies of George W. Bush on steroids... with a repudiation of economic reforms going back to the 1930s. Just think of the prospect of a return to "Hoovernomics". The only prosperity in a Romney presidency will be a speculative boom sure to go bust, a major war, or huge investments in private infrastructure that depend upon rip-off pricing (like rural toll roads that charge 40 cents a mile).

2. Obama wins and the economy improves. If this happens, there will be a kind of stasis for as long as the economy stays reasonably healthy. Obamacare will not be repealed, and the Democrats will have an advantage in the big picture. 2016 would be a toss-up, with a likely Republican victory but a possible victory for the Democrats. The Republicans would likely remain in control of the House, as they did from 1994-2006. "This far, but no further" will be the likely verdict on the Democrats in the near term, but the Republicans will still be stuck having to prove themselves. This assumes that the Democrats do not end up controlling both houses of Congress in November, which is more or less impossible.

Republicans lack a Plan B in the event of Democratic success. They may have no chance to develop one fast enough. The Tea Party pols will be seen increasingly irrelevant and discredited. The Senate will have plenty of Senate seats with low-performers, ideologues in anomalous places, and some elderly right-wingers at the end of the line -- held mostly by Republicans. The Democrats, in contrast, have plenty of stars.

2016 is sure to still be a Crisis year. The Republicans are not going to allow a repeal of the 22nd Amendment before at least 2020. If President Obama is successful, then maybe the Democrats will have a very different successor.

3. Obama wins and the economy does not improve. This is the worst case scenario for the Democrats. The Republicans will be given commanding majorities in Congress in 2014, and they will win the presidency in 2016 by a landslide. At this point, all but the Democrats' most die-hard supporters will have completely abandoned them. The analogy would be something like 2008 in reverse, but much, much worse. The Democrats would be forced to come up with something completely out of the box to regain relevance. The Tea Party movement was a natural phenomenon to revive the Republicans. I have no idea what the Democrats could come up with, because they will have lost while being true to their base, unlike the Republicans who have become unpopular while running away from their base.

The 'base' is good at most for about 35% of the popular vote for the President. That is the floor for failed challengers to popular Presidents and for incumbent failures who choose to run for a second term. It's just not good enough. A winner has to attract about half the moderates, at the least. Note well, of course, that in a Crisis Era even the norms of politics change. The only case for an economic failure of President Obama is that the slow, steady improvement based on everything but infrastructure projects or a speculative boom eventually runs out.

4. Romney wins and the economy does not improve. If this happens, I would predict something like 1992, with a right-leaning third party candidate splitting the vote and a moderate Democrat winning while promising a different approach from Obama. Congress would likely end up being somewhat evenly split. However, the circumstances would be much more grim, and it is the kind of environment where faith in both parties and government itself will have completely collapsed.

Barack Obama is a moderate Democrat, and he would be available unless the Republicans would have wisely appointed him to the Supreme Court. He or his successor promises to put an end to the economic failure of Romney and would have a willing Senate (think of all the GOP winners of 2010 that would be defeated in 2016) to force major reforms of the economic order, including a repudiation of any suspect reforms of a Romney Administration such as a national Right-to-Work (at starvation wages if your employer can take away your choices) law and any flat-tax or national sales tax. Maybe Obamacare is repealed, but it is replaced with a single-payer system that takes away a disadvantage that American companies endure (world's highest medical costs). But in the meantime look for strikes and riots, and that is before I contemplate the consequences of an amateurish foreign policy.

Many people are hoping for option 2, which is basically "return of the 1990s". But it's almost certainly not going to happen. If Obama wins, economic recovery will be all but impossible. With the burden of debt and Obamacare that that the economy will continue to bear, and Obama standing obstinately in the way of any change of direction, the next four years will be just like the last four. 1, 3 and 4 are the only likely outcomes. 1 and 3 are the most likely. 3 and 4 are the worst case scenarios for the country. If either of those happen, we will be at the bottom of the barrel by 2016. There will be no more superficial comparisons to the Great Depression, it will be agreed that we are in a depression. "Malaise" will sound like a party compared to the state the country will be in.

A 'return to the 1990s' is impossible. A Crisis Era leads to a High -- not back to the degenerate 3T that made a Crisis a certainty.

All of the above ignores the possibility of some major international problem. Weak U.S. leadership in the Middle East is setting the stage for something really bad to happen in the future. But I don't see it happening in the near term. To the extent that the Obama Administration has enabled radicals to take over several Muslim countries, things are more dangerous than they were a few years ago. But scattered terrorism is the most likely result right now, not something worse like a serious attempt at establishing the "Caliphate" that radicals are aiming for.

Weak leadership? Should we have backed elderly, corrupt dictators in Tunisia and Egypt? Should we have backed the tyrant Qaddafi? Say what you want about the Islamic brotherhood in Egypt -- it now has to deal with such realities as economic distress. As for the Caliphate... by contemporary standards some of the Caliphates were quite progressive and tolerant societies, much in contrast to Spain around AD 1500 or Germany around AD 1940. Need I tell you what happened to Jews in those countries at such times?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Neither of those is going to happen. The question now is whether the Republicans will lose the House. Not ready to call that yet.

That doesn't seem likely at all. The Dems have a lot of weak, squishy candidates out there, and not every Republican is as unpopular as the Romney/Ryan ticket.

Really, Romney would have to really alienate the base (which might be impossible, given how many of them actually believe Obama is a secret-Muslim communist who wants to destroy America) and get the Republicans to completely stay home on election day.

He might actually pull that off if he keeps trying to play the empathy and "compassionate conservative" role, but I kinda doubt it after the furor the right has whipped up over Obama's "socialist" ways.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

People (read: Boomers) who view politics as an occasion for "smack talk", are at the core of all of our problems. They're stuck in high school, trying to beat the rival football team. It's pathetic, and it's the reason why the country is disintegrating.

... while you are activeily engaged in the Quadrennial Kumbayah Group Hug^TM, of course. How could we have missed that. <EYE-ROLL>^TM.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

That doesn't seem likely at all.

The polls say otherwise, John. It's the least likely of the three possible Democratic victories, but not at all unlikely. What we're seeing is not just a turning away from Romney, but against the Republican Party as a whole. In fact, if Romney could run as the moderate he was when he governed Massachusetts, he'd probably be doing better.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Why are the liberals always out to win the popularity contest?

No, everyone wants that. Being popular is just as important in politics as it was in high school ... and for much the same reason.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The polls say otherwise, John. It's the least likely of the three possible Democratic victories, but not at all unlikely. What we're seeing is not just a turning away from Romney, but against the Republican Party as a whole. In fact, if Romney could run as the moderate he was when he governed Massachusetts, he'd probably be doing better.

What polls show Democrats making gains in the House? There's been a slight drift left over the last few weeks, but between gerrymandered districts and corporate cash flooding in, the Republicans are set up to pick up a few if anything.

By the way, after digging around OpenSecrets for a while, it looks like Obama is out-raising Romney among the biggest corporate donors. At the same time, those same corporations are pouring money on Republican Congressional candidates. And why not? Profits are at all-time highs, and they know that a GOP House isn't going to let anything change. It might not be as ideal for them as a Romney victory, but some things just can't be bought at any price.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Thing is, I don't think Ryan is the next in line. The way the Republican party was looking mooney-eyed for Christie suggests to me that he's next in line. I can see how Christie's weight would be a problem for some, but I don't think it would be a complete eliminating factor though.

~Chas'88

If the GOP runs Christie, they will not get the rocket candidat they think they have. Rubio would be better. Christie has already done enough harm to NJ that he very unlikely tp win a seocnd term. I don't see that as a good springboard to even higher office.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I'm not sure Hillary can win either, but I can't agree with extending your point to cover all Boomers. Certainly, in fact, we had very little to do with the mess. That is lumping Boomers in with the older generations as if we were all the same generation. Admittedly, younger people tend to do that. But it isn't true. The military-industrial complex and corporate state were there before Boomers came along; we opposed it, remember? Even GWBush's administration was mostly Silent, as are most of the tycoons that ruined our economy in 2008. Boomers are still going to be the leaders through the 4T. That is the prophet role. Although we will probably see an influx of Xers into congress in 2018, if past patterns hold.

And as for Hillary being 69 in Nov.2016, many Boomers are younger for their age than any previous generation. We never really got started anyway, as far as the presidency is concerned. Bill Clinton wasn't allowed to rule, and Dubya isn't a real boomer. There still are a lot of younger boomers available; 1946 and 1947 cohorts are among the oldest boomers.

We Boomers had our shots. Unless Obama does a whole lot better in the next 4 years, the Mllies will look elsewhere for a candidiate. Xers will be voiting for the Tea Party baloneyman, whoever that will be.

I'm not sure who it will be, but the Dems need to be grooming a few possibles soon. There ia a fresh-faced Boomer: Elizabeth Warren. She would have been a great choice for 2016 if she had been born 10 years later. At 67, she'll just be too old for the times. I see no Xers in the wings, and all the Millies are too young. 2016 will probably be a GOP year.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

What polls show Democrats making gains in the House? There's been a slight drift left over the last few weeks, but between gerrymandered districts and corporate cash flooding in, the Republicans are set up to pick up a few if anything.

Current RCP averages show Democrats picking up a few seats, but the main thing to note is that the trend is their direction.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...house_map.html

Here's a reading on the generic party preference, which is not as good an indicator as the race-by-race polling but shows the trend direction more clearly:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/...nal-house-race

As I said, it's the least likely of the three possible Democratic victories, but it is possible.

Originally Posted by Odin

JPT, for all your hatred of Boomers, you sure act like them.

No -- just like his stereotype of them (or us if you too are a Boomer). Projection, I suppose. That is how much bigotry operates... the white sex fiend with kinky desires who thinks that African-American sexuality must be even wilder, the rapacious gentile plutocrat who thinks the Jews even worse, the Bircher whose cell organization and rigid ideology mirrors that of the Communist Party...

How does he explain that I show as much contempt for the behavior of (largely-Boomer) executive elites and some political operatives? I am as judgmental as anyone, and I can judge anyone in my alleged group by age, ethnicity, professional status, religion... But that happens when principle trumps quick gain.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Ryan/Rubio is a good early bet, but who knows. Purely hypothetical at this point.

If Obama wins, things would have to be going extremely well in 2016 for a Democrat to be elected. It's highly unlikely. If Romney wins, and things are going badly, Hillary would have a strong chance. I would bet against her ever being president at this point, for a number of reasons.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by JPT ...

1. There will not be a Civil War. Think about what happened in the 1860s. You had the states divided over a single controversial issue, more or less 50-50, and also evenly split geographically. Half the states declared they were seceding, built up an army, and attempted to forcibly expel the federal government from their territory. The conditions do not exist for anything remotely like that to happen today. It is simply not possible. If some kind of violence broke out, all levels of government, both parties, and the overwhelming majority of the population would be united in stamping it out. You have the wrong nightmare scenario in mind. I'm going to break down in very clear terms what's going on, and what things will look like if the Democratic Party, as it is currently constituted, achieves the kind of "permanent victory" the wackadoo leftists here are salivating about.

Agreed. ACW 2.0 has no chance of happening, unless the country changes in a very fundamental way.

Originally Posted by JPT ...

The United States has been eroding from within since the "cultural revolution" of the 1960s. The modern Democratic Party is cultivating an underclass of single mothers on welfare and unemployable males, and they are increasing that population by pressing cultural "liberalism" from the top down, and importing fresh poverty from abroad to be ushered into that same underclass culture.

Here, you stepped on you own tongue. Is there decay? Yes. Is it in those liberal bastions of the north and west? No. Where is it? In the deep south and the flat-sqare states.

Thanks for playing.

Originally Posted by JPT ...

If the destruction of "traditional morality" continues to spread as it has been, we will soon reach a tipping point where Margaret Thatcher's concise observation comes true: "The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money". It is already happening, which is why the economy has become a basket case. Many Americans are simply not employable, and not well-educated enough to hold the jobs the economy is producing.

Well, the economy isn't producing many new jobw, and the ones that are being produced are bottom-feeder service and retail jobs tha can't be exported, and ones that require a lot of education. All the jobs in the middle are being eliminated by automation. The only viable alterntive: tax the corporations heaviliy, and use the money to build infrastructure. Large infrastucture projects generate real jobs for ordinary people.

Originally Posted by JPT ...

And no amount of spending on education is going to change it, because it is the result of a growing culture of dependency and dissolution, drug abuse, single mothers, and blaming all problems on somebody else (specifically, whoever votes for the Republicans). The "emerging Democratic majority" that the Democrats are pursuing is built on a false assumption: that you can have the majority of the population siphoning off the productivity of a minority of educated, productive citizens and still have a prosperous, advanced modern economy. You can't.

Well, why not start with those who really need the help, in the Red areas? These good GOP-supporting rednecks need jobs too. In fact, they are the bulk of the problem.

Originally Posted by JPT ...

If the Democrats were socially conservative, as they were in the days of FDR, they might be able to square the circle. Bill Clinton at least had some minor grasp of the need for balance, by pursuing welfare reform and being "tough on crime" (at least symbolically). But the way they are going now, they are creating a house of cards that cannot stand. They think they want to be like Europe. But what they are creating will not be like Europe, and the European model itself is collapsing as we speak. Simply put, if the Democrats get their way, before long there will be nobody to pay for the system they're trying to create. There will be nobody to make it run, because nobody will know how to operate the machinery of a modern economy. Instead of building up those at the bottom by encouraging good behavior and teaching the "traditional values" that lead to success, they are driving more and more people down into the underclass. In the short term it may get them votes and win them elections. But the inevitable economic decline that results from it is already upon us. If there is not a dramatic reversal, and soon, what we are seeing now in the economy is not going to reverse. It's going to get much, much worse. Single parent homes is the single biggest crisis facing America today. It is a trend that is growing, not shrinking. If it does not reverse, the economy and society will completely collapse. It's not even arguable. It's going to happen. It is already happening.

As I said, the problem isn't where you claim it is, so why should we assume it is WHAT you think it is. That said, there are real problems with dependency based on social and educational limitations. Someone wanting a job needs to know how to show up, take direction and act civil. I don't see this as a liberal/conservative issue, or a religous/secular issue either. Isn't is odd that this has become an epidemic today, following decades of excessive use of incarceration, destruction of social service bureaus and aid to the nation's underdogs?

Originally Posted by JPT ...

2. There will not be a "war" with Iran. If something happens, it will be strategic bombing. There will be no ground forces, and no attempt at "regime change". Not going to happen, regardless of who wins in November. The bombing may very well happen, again, regardless of who wins in November.

If Romney wins, we'll have boots on the ground inside 6 months. Otherwise, you're correct.

Originally Posted by JPT ...

When it comes to actual plausible scenarios in the short term future, these are the only ones available:

1. Romney wins and the economy improves. If this happens, the Democrats will be back where they were in the 1980s. Their ideology will have been discredited and repudiated, but they will likely be able to make some gains in Congress and at the state level with more moderate candidates. They'll regroup as they did before, and eventually produce a more centrist "product" that can get them back on track.

Highly ulikely for several reasons.

Originally Posted by JPT ...

2. Obama wins and the economy improves. If this happens, there will be a kind of stasis for as long as the economy stays reasonably healthy. Obamacare will not be repealed, and the Democrats will have an advantage in the big picture. 2016 would be a toss-up, with a likely Republican victory but a possible victory for the Democrats. The Republicans would likely remain in control of the House, as they did from 1994-2006. "This far, but no further" will be the likely verdict on the Democrats in the near term, but the Republicans will still be stuck having to prove themselves. This assumes that the Democrats do not end up controlling both houses of Congress in November, which is more or less impossible.

Possible.

Originally Posted by JPT ...

3. Obama wins and the economy does not improve. This is the worst case scenario for the Democrats. The Republicans will be given commanding majorities in Congress in 2014, and they will win the presidency in 2016 by a landslide. At this point, all but the Democrats' most die-hard supporters will have completely abandoned them. The analogy would be something like 2008 in reverse, but much, much worse. The Democrats would be forced to come up with something completely out of the box to regain relevance. The Tea Party movement was a natural phenomenon to revive the Republicans. I have no idea what the Democrats could come up with, because they will have lost while being true to their base, unlike the Republicans who have become unpopular while running away from their base.

4. Romney wins and the economy does not improve. If this happens, I would predict something like 1992, with a right-leaning third party candidate splitting the vote and a moderate Democrat winning while promising a different approach from Obama. Congress would likely end up being somewhat evenly split. However, the circumstances would be much more grim, and it is the kind of environment where faith in both parties and government itself will have completely collapsed.

Your assumption of fwhat will follow a Romney win is at lest possible (likely, in fact), but it should be the last hurrah for the GOP. Eithe the elctoorate throws them out, of the remaining Dems give them a tasts of their 2010 medicine ... on steroids.

Originally Posted by JPT ...

Many people are hoping for option 2, which is basically "return of the 1990s". But it's almost certainly not going to happen. If Obama wins, economic recovery will be all but impossible. With the burden of debt and Obamacare that that the economy will continue to bear, and Obama standing obstinately in the way of any change of direction, the next four years will be just like the last four. 1, 3 and 4 are the only likely outcomes. 1 and 3 are the most likely. 3 and 4 are the worst case scenarios for the country. If either of those happen, we will be at the bottom of the barrel by 2016. There will be no more superficial comparisons to the Great Depression, it will be agreed that we are in a depression. "Malaise" will sound like a party compared to the state the country will be in.

All of the above ignores the possibility of some major international problem. Weak U.S. leadership in the Middle East is setting the stage for something really bad to happen in the future. But I don't see it happening in the near term. To the extent that the Obama Administration has enabled radicals to take over several Muslim countries, things are more dangerous than they were a few years ago. But scattered terrorism is the most likely result right now, not something worse like a serious attempt at establishing the "Caliphate" that radicals are aiming for.

As usual, you analysis is a wishlist of unrealistic expectations. You have every right to have them, but they won't happen.

You would think someone like Coulter would know her audience better. At least 1/2 of the 47% are Republicans, but she now goes beyond Romney's 'hopeless' to this -



In the meantime, the Dems have saved a lot of money on having to pay a script writer. Romney wrote this one for them -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=B9xCCaseop4

I don't think those people like being called hopeless and retarded.

What's cool is the wing nut propaganda machine doesn't understand that and doesn't understand that some of those people use to be part of their audience.

Highly anticipated and going super viral -

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.co...-voters-wake-f

- scroll down for the video (the somewhat "clean" version - hey, it's Samuel Jackson]

Really funny, and more importantly makes getting out to vote for Obama as cool as it was in 2008.

So much for GOP's Evangelical get-out-the-vote; we got Samuel F'in Jackson! Sorry, no contest.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Highly anticipated and going super viral -

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.co...-voters-wake-f

- scroll down for the video (the somewhat "clean" version - hey, it's Samuel Jackson]

Really funny, and more importantly makes getting out to vote for Obama as cool as it was in 2008.

So much for GOP's Evangelical get-out-the-vote; we got Samuel F'in Jackson! Sorry, no contest.

The reason why is it's so campy in a Seussical way,
it's a ridiculously funnier take on the fray.
Humor is a way to garner more views,
But from humor do people really take cues?
Whether more views will equal more action,
is something that hasn't been determined yet as a reaction.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Current RCP averages show Democrats picking up a few seats, but the main thing to note is that the trend is their direction.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...house_map.html

Here's a reading on the generic party preference, which is not as good an indicator as the race-by-race polling but shows the trend direction more clearly:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/...nal-house-race

As I said, it's the least likely of the three possible Democratic victories, but it is possible.

Well, the trend is shifting that way, but much more slowly in the House race than it is in the presidential race. RCP says that if the Democrats win every single close race, they still wouldn't have a majority. The direction doesn't have to change, but the velocity would have to change in a BIG way.

I hypothesize several causes for Congressional-election inertia:

• Obama is probably the strongest Democratic candidate right now, but Romney isn't the strongest Republican. The parties are just structured differently and take different approaches to hierarchy. Bachman might actually get taken down, but her opponent is a Democrat with business experience who can appeal to a broader group of people than most of the Democrats currently running.
• Republican legislators and governors swept in with the Tea Party wave have been busy "cleaning up" voter registration rolls and redrawing Congressional districts to protect Republican majorities.
• Corporate money is favoring House Republicans even more than it is favoring Obama over Romney.

It's possible, sure, in the sense that almost anything is possible. It is very, very unlikely, though, unless some sort of scandal implicates the entire Republican party at once.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

The reason why is it's so campy in a Seussical way,
it's a ridiculously funnier take on the fray.
Humor is a way to garner more views,
But from humor do people really take cues?
Whether more views will equal more action,
is something that has not yet been determined yet as a reaction.

~Chas'88

I'd rather be waking people the F up
than squawking like Romney the dead duck.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We Boomers had our shots. Unless Obama does a whole lot better in the next 4 years, the Mllies will look elsewhere for a candidiate. Xers will be voiting for the Tea Party baloneyman, whoever that will be.

I'm not sure who it will be, but the Dems need to be grooming a few possibles soon. There ia a fresh-faced Boomer: Elizabeth Warren. She would have been a great choice for 2016 if she had been born 10 years later. At 67, she'll just be too old for the times. I see no Xers in the wings, and all the Millies are too young. 2016 will probably be a GOP year.

There will still be boomer leaders in the 2020s, just as there are still Silent leaders today. Age 60s is not too old anymore, although I doubt Warren is presidential material. But I agree that 2016 could likely be a GOP year for the White House; probably Paul Ryan or Jeb Bush. I think it will be a disaster, and will lead toward a period of real action in the 2020s. The Democrats would take back the White House that year, if the GOP wins in 2016. If the Democrats win in 2016, then the GOP would win in 2020 (with some Xer charismatic dufus like Ryan), and the resulting disaster would lead to upheavel in the 2024 election, and some kind of national break up the following year. Zero year elections always mean a change in party and/or a major change in the direction of policy. For a long time it meant that whoever was elected would die in office; with a resulting major shift in policy if it happened in the first year afterward. The boomer grey champions of the 2020s are likely not even visible yet.