(POL) Whoever wins, will anything really change?

[Galaxy]

I guess it depends on how Congress looks, but will anything change much the next 4 years? Will we still have gridlock?

[Young Drachma]

Depends on how you define change.

[JonInMiddleGA]

If I'm right about the Pres. election then gridlock is the very best possible outcome we can hope for.

I can't say that I'd be shocked (or even upset) if D's felt that way about the prospects for the next four years if Romney happened to win.

[larrymcg421]

It is almost certain to be a Dem Senate, GOP Congress, so gridlock is likely either way.

As for change, I think there is a stark contrast to the SCOTUS justices that Romney and Obama would appoint. And with three justices over 75 years old, that's not a minor issue.

[britrock88]

I'll echo all the previous answers.

[Leroy Veritas]

Gridlock may be the best option at this point. Until someone comes along who is willing to work for legitimate fiscal reform then minimizing the impact of whomever is POTUS could be the most desirable outcome.

[Big Fo]

In this election season it seems to me like the economy is overrated, at least in terms of what the president can do to make it better or worse.

But social issues, foreign policy, SCOTUS justices like larrymcg421 mentioned, there are lots of reasons that I think tomorrow's election matters.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If I'm right about the Pres. election then gridlock is the very best possible outcome we can hope for.

I can't say that I'd be shocked (or even upset) if D's felt that way about the prospects for the next four years if Romney happened to win.

If I'm wrong about the Pres. election then gridlock is the very best possible outcome we can hope for.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

It is almost certain to be a Dem Senate, GOP Congress, so gridlock is likely either way.

As for change, I think there is a stark contrast to the SCOTUS justices that Romney and Obama would appoint. And with three justices over 75 years old, that's not a minor issue.

Most people seem to think that if Obama wins, Ginsburg and Breyer are likely to retire. If they are going to do it, they will need to do it by January 2015 or the Republicans will just try to run out the clock until the 2016 election. Most people thought Ginsburg would retire in his first term due to age and health problems, so there's the chance she still won't retire. If those two retired, Obama will have appointed more justices than anyone since Eishenhower and repositioned the minority base for easily the next 20 years.

Some people think there will be a third opening in the next four years, which would have to be Kennedy. If Kennedy were to leave the court, that would mark a historic swing.

No way Scalia leaves the court in the next four years without dropping dead.

[kcchief19]

My biggest worry regarding the outcome of the election is addressing the fiscal cliff. If Obama wins, there is no reason for Congress not to go back to work Nov. 7 on hammering out a resolution. The closer we get to Jan. 1 without a resolution, the more devastating effects it will have on the economy.

The worse case scenario is that Romney wins and Republicans think they will have a better chance to get a deal closer to their liking if they try to drag out the resolution to Jan. 20, with the idea that the new Congress can put together a package in the first few weeks of the year and send it to Romney on his way to the Inaugural balls. That unfortunately would mean massive budget cuts, government furloughs of employees, a huge stock market drop and massive tax confusion.

If Obama wins, nothing changes. There will be no reason to wait until the next Congress, especially if Congress remains divided. This needs to be address in the next six weeks or all hell will break loose.

[Leroy Veritas]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

My biggest worry regarding the outcome of the election is addressing the fiscal cliff.

I'd be interested in your take on this article:

A Capitalist’s Dilemma, Whoever Wins the Election - NYTimes.com

[Marc Vaughan]

If Obama wins then I think the Republican party will be forced to accept that extremism is hurting their chances of ever getting to power again - at that point I'd expect them to work with Obama on at least sensible policy with the intent of building their chances and improving credibility outside of their 'core' base for the next election.

(at present the 'take' I have is that the Democratic 'base' is growing because of demographics and the traditional Republican base has been decreasing .. if this trend continues which seems likely then the Republicans need to start competing for the Democratic base rather than pandering to their hardcore)

Obviously if Romney wins then the Tea Party will be estatic - I'd expect the Democrats not to be AS obstructionist as the Republicans have been, but they'll definitely play their share of silly politics at cost to the country ...

[fortheglory]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

If Obama wins then I think the Republican party will be forced to accept that extremism is hurting their chances of ever getting to power again - at that point I'd expect them to work with Obama on at least sensible policy with the intent of building their chances and improving credibility outside of their 'core' base for the next election.

(at present the 'take' I have is that the Democratic 'base' is growing because of demographics and the traditional Republican base has been decreasing .. if this trend continues which seems likely then the Republicans need to start competing for the Democratic base rather than pandering to their hardcore)

Obviously if Romney wins then the Tea Party will be estatic - I'd expect the Democrats not to be AS obstructionist as the Republicans have been, but they'll definitely play their share of silly politics at cost to the country ...

Under G.W. Bush, the democratic congress was just as bad if not worse. Especially in 2005 when the future of social security was being debated.

[Leroy Veritas]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Obviously if Romney wins then the Tea Party will be estatic -

The Tea Party is primarily about reducing wasteful government spending and reducing the size of the Federal government. Romney, despite his campaign rhetoric, doesn't have a history that supports him doing either thing. His biggest challenge in the primaries was getting the Tea Party/Ron Paul crowd because they see him as a war profiteer statist and consider that as bad as being the social policy statist they view Obama to be.

I would go so far as to say that the reason Romney has no chance tomorrow is that the Tea Party portion of the Republican Party, which is more Libertarian than far right, doesn't want to have anything to do with him.

[Crapshoot]

The Tea Party is libertarian? Michelle Bachman is "libertarian"? The idiots with the "Keeps your socialists hands off my Medicare" are libertarian? Are we living in cuckoo land?

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Are we living in cuckoo land?

yes.

[Leroy Veritas]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

The Tea Party is libertarian? Michelle Bachman is "libertarian"? The idiots with the "Keeps your socialists hands off my Medicare" are libertarian? Are we living in cuckoo land?

The Tea Party, at least initially, was very Libertarian on social issues though not on foreign policy. People like Bachman were able to successfully co-opt what was going on to try and give themselves some viability in the GOP. There's definitely been a big shift as the Tea Party became more popular.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

The Tea Party is libertarian? Michelle Bachman is "libertarian"? The idiots with the "Keeps your socialists hands off my Medicare" are libertarian? Are we living in cuckoo land?

Yup. Which is why the pundit idea the GOP will "wise up" and moderate is cuckoo as well. A loss will just embolden the right wing nut jobs further in trying to push the Republican party further right. Remember, logic has nothing to do with their "anger."

[JonInMiddleGA]

A Romney loss might just mean there could be an actual conservative candidate nominated in four years. There certainly hasn't been one in the last eight.

Then again, a Romney win probably ensures the same thing as well. Nothing like four years of disappointment to erode his support.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

A Romney loss might just mean there could be an actual conservative candidate nominated in four years. There certainly hasn't been one in the last eight.

Then again, a Romney win probably ensures the same thing as well. Nothing like four years of disappointment to erode his support.

Define what it means to be a conservative candidate? Financial? Social? Social conservatism is something the GOP needs to move away from if they want start swimming against a stream that getting bigger and bigger coming at them.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Social conservatism is something the GOP needs to move away from if they want start swimming against a stream that getting bigger and bigger coming at them.

I'd say it's what it has to embrace to have any real meaning at all. Otherwise it's just DemLite, and that's rather pointless.

As for that "stream", a lot of work certainly needs to be done building and repairing "dams" and "sea walls", I won't argue that point at all.

[Qwikshot]

I'm probably voting Democrat this year, but I liked Chris Christie no-nonsense approach during Sandy (I'm a Pennsylvanian so I read much on his governing in NJ).

My problem with Romney was my problem with Bush II (and McCain who I did like but then ruined that with bringing Palin on) is that they say much but really are for doing little for American people as much as they are just for strengthening the Republican base. I know politics is a game and all, but it is just so blatant and there is nothing there to galvanize everyone into making America better cept empty rhetoric (or bombing Middle Eastern countries).

I had high hopes with Obama, but I'm sticking to some of the more main issues. He got the US out of Iraq (which we had to do since immunity wasn't going to be honored) and he got OBL so from a foreign policty point of view those are big wins, Libya is overblown, yes I know an ambassador is dead but there is a great risk being in destabiilized countries and being American, and anyone who works in those regions as an American, is going to be a constant target.

The economy has been a wreck, but it was going South before the Obama's term. By removing Iraq involvement and planning to leave Afghanistan (remember how a big issue was no exit plan for Iraq) we have reduced costs, and Libya was almost non-boot involvement and managed to topple another boogeyman on American policy.

Anyhow, I've rambled. I'm not a true democrat, nor am I republican, I'm just a man who votes on who I feel is better for this country, not just for me or party affiliation, and that's Obama this year.

In four years, we'll see who runs.

[SteveMax58]

I think regardless of who wins (which I find a difficult time believing will be Romney) the economy gets a slight bump in late 2012/early 2013 until the usual cycle of congressional gridlock & potential derailing of debt issues.

By 2016 I expect the Republican party will start their shift towards a more libertarian social philosophy. They just have to figure out how to do that & still keep the social conservative vote (at least not make them completely apathetic).

It seems ridiculous to many but so long as there is government, there will always be those that wish to hijack its power & use it for their agenda. And what Republicans/conservatives/libertarians should be standing for (imo) is not the idea of moving forward (i.e. what progressives want)...but the idea of moving forward "too" quickly without having a reasonable understanding of the implications & fallout. R's lost this public perception of them (certainly not everybody felt that way prior) in the last 20 years and this is ultimately what they need to get back to in order to have any sort of relevance at the national level.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Most people seem to think that if Obama wins, Ginsburg and Breyer are likely to retire. If they are going to do it, they will need to do it by January 2015 or the Republicans will just try to run out the clock until the 2016 election. Most people thought Ginsburg would retire in his first term due to age and health problems, so there's the chance she still won't retire. If those two retired, Obama will have appointed more justices than anyone since Eishenhower and repositioned the minority base for easily the next 20 years.

Some people think there will be a third opening in the next four years, which would have to be Kennedy. If Kennedy were to leave the court, that would mark a historic swing.

No way Scalia leaves the court in the next four years without dropping dead.

How is it a historic swing? Just by numbers? It's not like GWB didn't just replace an actual swing vote with Alito, shifting the court distinctly conservative.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by fortheglory

Under G.W. Bush, the democratic congress was just as bad if not worse. Especially in 2005 when the future of social security was being debated.

I'm going to go with shenanigans on this one:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...er_in_one.html



SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

A Romney loss might just mean there could be an actual conservative candidate nominated in four years. There certainly hasn't been one in the last eight.

Then again, a Romney win probably ensures the same thing as well. Nothing like four years of disappointment to erode his support.

I'm really curious who you see on the national stage who can actually play to the GOP base but win the portion of the center needed to win a national election.

SI

[RedKingGold]

I think Chris Christie will be our President in January 2017.

[molson]

So a lot of people think the Republicans will become more moderate as a party if Obama wins, and that they might even be willing to work with him more. I could see that if this turned out to be a historic 49-1 kind of blowout. But let's say Romney wins the popular vote? Won't that embolden the Republicans? I think we'd hear about that a TON over the next 4 years, and Republicans will have more momentum to take on Obama and fight him on his policies. ("The people have spoken and rejected this president and his policies!" kind of stuff).

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by fortheglory

Under G.W. Bush, the democratic congress was just as bad if not worse. Especially in 2005 when the future of social security was being debated.

That's why the Bush tax cuts were blocked, and the Patriot Act, and the AUMF, and Medicare Part D, and No Child Left Behind. Clearly the Dems were just as obstructionist.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

So a lot of people think the Republicans will become more moderate as a party if Obama wins, and that they might even be willing to work with him more. I could see that if this turned out to be a historic 49-1 kind of blowout. But let's say Romney wins the popular vote? Won't that embolden the Republicans? I think we'd hear about that a TON over the next 4 years, and Republicans will have more momentum to take on Obama and fight him on his policies. ("The people have spoken and rejected this president and his policies!" kind of stuff).

It's very difficult for one party to control the WH for three election cycles. I think the GOP digs in and hopes they'll win in 2016.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'm going to go with shenanigans on this one:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...er_in_one.html

Besides using just one statistic, I will say that that graph shows the BOTH parties are screwing up Congress, doubly so when the other party has the Presidency.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'm really curious who you see on the national stage who can actually play to the GOP base but win the portion of the center needed to win a national election.

I don't know whether we've identified that person yet.

Plus four more years like last the previous four (actually far worse I strongly suspect) & the existing D base will continue to erode.

Actually, four more years like the last four & who knows how (or if) we'll be picking a President ... even if that office isn't entirely to blame for the situation.

edit to add: You have to keep in mind, I believe that we're already at the peak of "the new normal" and that those who think we're going to see any sort of notable economic recovery are basically delusional.

[cody8200]

I see things going the same way in most areas regardless of who wins. The thing that is most concerning to me is the long term economy and really, I don't see a win for either side changing that is a drastic way.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

I think Chris Christie will be our President in January 2017.

If a massive coronary doesn't get him first.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Besides using just one statistic, I will say that that graph shows the BOTH parties are screwing up Congress, doubly so when the other party has the Presidency.

It still shows that FALSE EQUIVALENCY IS FALSE.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Besides using just one statistic, I will say that that graph shows the BOTH parties are screwing up Congress, doubly so when the other party has the Presidency.

Of course. The old "both parties do it" argument.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I don't know whether we've identified that person yet.

Plus four more years like last the previous four (actually far worse I strongly suspect) & the existing D base will continue to erode.

Actually, four more years like the last four & who knows how (or if) we'll be picking a President ... even if that office isn't entirely to blame for the situation.

edit to add: You have to keep in mind, I believe that we're already at the peak of "the new normal" and that those who think we're going to see any sort of notable economic recovery are basically delusional.

I think there's a small but definitely non-zero chance (5~10%) that we're just heading towards Great Depression II and whichever party is in power will be in ruin for a generation like the Republicans in the 30s. It's like a perverse game of musical chairs or hot potato.

I also think there's a decent chance that we're in the economic new normal for a while, just as an artifact of macroeconomics. Again, we've been riding so high on the wave of being the only standing first world economy after WW2, it was bound to fall back. Frankly, it would have happened in the 90s but we had a once in a lifetime jobs phenomenon in the internet and Silicon Valley just happen to be on our doorstep.

That said, with boomers retiring, the job market probably has to improve just based on demographics unless we become global enough that all those jobs just go to newly second and first world places from Japan and Europe to BRIC.

SI

[Leroy Veritas]

Originally Posted by Leroy Veritas

I'd be interested in your take on this article:

A Capitalist’s Dilemma, Whoever Wins the Election - NYTimes.com

Just popping this one back down here to see what folks think about it as at least the starting point for real economic recovery.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Leroy Veritas

Just popping this one back down here to see what folks think about it as at least the starting point for real economic recovery.

Interesting. I like the change he suggests to capital gains, and I agree there needs to be incentives to empowering innovations versus just constant funding of efficiency innovations. I question what he means about changing higher education funding.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Of course. The old "both parties do it" argument.

I was going for the "both parties suck" argument.

[Leroy Veritas]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Interesting. I like the change he suggests to capital gains, and I agree there needs to be incentives to empowering innovations versus just constant funding of efficiency innovations. I question what he means about changing higher education funding.

I do as well. I work in the education industry and would like the whole system to be essentially blown up at this point. I think he's hinting towards technology infused, project based, student directed learning that focuses on the actual job market of today instead of a myriad of mostly meaningless majors now that don't prepare people for the jobs that are becoming most prominent.

I've got a friend who did an educational technology master's degree that didn't involve producing any artifacts with technology, but was just writing research papers about it. What is needed in that field are people who can actually produce the artifacts and put them together in a meaningful way that enhances education.

If that's what he's hinting at, then I agree that the high school and collegiate experience need to be revamped to focus on keeping up with the job markets more than doing something that is easy to put into a standardized test.

On the capital gains side of it, I like his thinking but there likely needs to be a cap on how low the rate can drop or there's nothing to keep folks from hoarding the money that way instead of continuously re-investing it.

[fortheglory]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That's why the Bush tax cuts were blocked, and the Patriot Act, and the AUMF, and Medicare Part D, and No Child Left Behind. Clearly the Dems were just as obstructionist.

Much of that was passed while congress was a republican majority.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by fortheglory

Much of that was passed while congress was a republican majority.

Not to mention that the Dems did such a good job tearing down things like the Patriot Act when they had their chance. Or closing Guantanamo after crying about it for so long. Etc.

No, nothing will really change. Maybe some of the money they take from me will go to different people, but fundamentally either party will continue to drive this country off a cliff to suit their own short-term ends.