I don't think he will be worse than Carter just because of the economy alone. He won't have the chance to screw up because the government is so hog-tied financially. Ditto for McCain in that regard.

You'll pardon my lack of confidence that we won't be challenged in the near future. When you're the big dog in the world, there are always others gunning for that power or hoping to make a name for themselves by challenging that power. They may not challenge the homeland, but there are plenty of overseas interests that can be targeted.

If anyone was wondering why it seems that the National polls are tightening while the State polls (and overall EV distribution) aren't, 538's Nate Silver tries to explain.

What kind of 'miracle' are you hoping for 'in a relatively short time after'? Please tell me this is not an allusion to the chance of an assassination...

Militarily, the U.S. will not be challenged by a state-based, established power for the forseeable future. The risk/reward ratio is just not there to do so.

Militarily, and on a security front, the U.S. will continue to be challenged by terrorists around the globe. That's something we just need to get used to, like many other countries already have done. Spain lived with ETA, Britain lived with the IRA, and that's to say nothing about various groups in SE Asia. It's a threat we're going to have to live with, and learn to both combat and protect ourselves against.

Economically, the U.S. will not be seriously challenged until:

1. Another consumer economy arises to eclipse the U.S.'s as an engine to the world economy.

2. Major financial centers eclipse New York's importance.

I can definitely see it happening (economically) but not anytime soon. I know everyone points to China, but I think they need to get over the massive hurdle of their growth not being sustainable with that kind of population (and the massive civil unrest they're going to face very soon) before they can become a truly premier competitor.

Without reading the article, my guess is that in McCain states, they are driving out the vote, but in contested states, he is not gaining ground.

What do you think the aggression in Georgia was about? In some oddball sense, we're lucky our military was busy elsewhere or that might have escalated further than it did.

I believe an assassination is a virtual certainty, more a matter of "when" not "if". But for the hypersensitive, let me state categorically that I'm not calling for that to happen nor advocating that it happen. I'm simply stating that I believe that there's a high likelihood that it happens. So that is definitely not the close proximity miracle I was referring to.

Nope, that reference was to having the term of eventual President Biden turn out to be more tolerable than the one we would otherwise get. Given the climate that I believe would likely follow an assassination, that would take at least a minor miracle in its own right (since I suspect the Obama agenda would go sailing along on the coattails of his martyrdom).

Wow

Well said. I think we tend to overestimate the importance that other countries views of us have on their foreign policy while underestimating the impact of domestic situations in foreign powers on their foreign policies. In short, Iran is not going to challenge us because Obama is in the White House, or because McCain is. Iran is going to challenge us because that is what is required for them to achieve domestic and/or regional security/legitimacy. They don't think "oh this guy is weak, I'm going to challenge America." They think "I'm going to challenge America regardless of who is in office, because I need X."


Very true. The era of superpowers is coming to a close. Certainly from an economic/influential standpoint, even if we still maintain a military advantage.

:eek: :confused:

Geez, I'm not going to point fingers here, but this thread just got really uncomfortable, regardless of how I agree or disagree. Any chance we can stick to the issues?

Yes. Dunno how this post was for the most part ignored, as this seems a very important point.

I'm just not sure how Obama is the disaster that is basically Nero fiddling while Rome burns. It's not as if he created the mess, it's just that he or McCain will be the individual thrust into it. The groundwork for this has been laid at many various points from as far back as when China or India were drawn up on a map and formed as countries to our horrible explosion of government debt in the 80s and 00s to a lot of the horribly failed plans of the last 8 years.

The argument can be made that neither of these men is up for the challenge. However, it could also be made that no one could effectively get out of this situation because it was a disaster with no chance of victory. No matter how good your plans are, you can't win at Thermopylae or the Alamo. Do you see anyone out there who can fix all of these problems or at least put a dent in them? Or is it just that we're doomed, it's just a matter of how quickly?

I just don't see how the next President, be it Obama or McCain, can be seen as the end of the world. Either he's in a no-win situation and will grease the road to hell so we speed down that way faster or he'll actually manage to slow or even reverse some of the bad course we're on. But it's not as if we're at a pinnacle or a high plateau right now where things are great and he's going to ruin that. One could argue that about our current President, especially with hindsight favoring us, but I don't see how you can do that about the next one.

SI

Understood, but as I mentioned in my other post, there are plenty of indirect challenges to the U.S. that are not terrorist-based. Georgia was a very good example of that.

are they rolling averages?

I'm a little concerned about that possibility in the first paragraph. There's still a lot of stupid in this world and in this country but I like to naively thing we've gotten past it. Not that there aren't people racist enough or filled with enough hate to try something but to do something like an assassination, you have to have more than a motive- you still have to have means and opportunity. So, I'm hoping a combination of all 3 aren't readily available.

As for the second paragraph- we've seen how people react here to tragedy in "recent history". After Kennedy, Johnson did a lot of what you just said tho I think he was a more forceful advocate for things he pushed than Biden. In short, he had more of an agenda than I think Biden does. Oklahoma City resulted in a lot of uproar but not much done- some militia scapegoating and a bunch of regulations on buying fertilizer but much ado about nothing. However, 9/11 and the recent economic problems have shown we're more than willing to act hastily and stupidly in the face of a crisis. But during those, people were pannicked because they were individually affected and there was wild sentiment to get something done- I'm not sure how an assassination plays into that as it's clear that only one person is a target.

SI

Dear Flasch,

Please stop. You're killing me.

Sincerely,
Seattle Slew

dude youre the one who uses this poll or that poll to your advantage when it fits. When one went one way you'd throw out that it was a rolling average and not reflective than you'd pull some other poll out of your ass. why not just take an average of the polls if youre having such difficulty and looking for any sliver to hang on to, like Drudge. Im fine either way but if it's good for the goose than when it cooks up it'll taste damn good. I love the part where you go down the path, after a good long while, of just simply discrediting the entire polling structure. Pure gold.

McCain want to drop the Khalidi thing. He serves as chairman of the International Republican Institute. In 1998, McCain was still chairman when this group gave $448,000 to the Center for Palestine Research and Studies, a group Khalidi founded and served on the board for.

Political Punch

and the gander

I sincerely doubt he wants to drop it. There's dirty laundry that crosses paths all over the place in politics. With that said, if the comment attributed to Obama is validated, no one will care who gave who money. As I said, that's a political firestorm and would have significant electorate ramifications.

Seriously? It's not as though what I wrote was exactly a novel idea.

I've seen the first part theorized from the virtual opposite ends of the spectrum (from white supremacists to rappers) and the second part seems like at very worst a reasonable possibility, as the subsequent allusion to Johnson following the Kennedy agenda while substituting some of his own highlights from fairly recent history.

Given that I agree with SI's comment about Biden seeming to have less of a truly personal agenda himself, it seems even more likely that he would take a significant portion of the Obama agenda & try to make it his own.

Disagree, be disturbed by the prospect, or even by uncomfortable with the possibly cold-blooded analysis/speculation, all those reactions I can comprehend whether I agree or not ... but I don't see a truly "wow" worthy thing about either paragraph. So you care to explain where you found a "wow", I'd be interested (and not the least bit offended if you opt not to, that's cool too).

Or maybe I'm just misinterpreting how you used the word.

Damn you guys are flying this morning, two pages since the middle of the night. Can't wait for Election Day.

Jon, what is the Obama agenda? You can stick to the parts you disagree with (I'm assuming that's almost all of them) if you like.

I'll go ahead and say up front as someone who is not voting for Obama, I don't think you and him have a whole lot to disagree about other than the (D) next to his name.

So we go from arguing points of why he shouldn't be elected, to arguing the validity of polls, to saying hey, if he gets elected chances are he'll be dead before the four years are up so let's debate Biden's views since he'll likely be dictating what we do for the next four years.

It's just a grim view of things that sucks any optimism out of what is a crucial election, be you a republican, democrat or independent.

I know this discussion on this forum isn't going to change minds, but you'd think that it would stay on what the election is about instead of debating something that shouldn't even be part of the discussion.

It's more like I'm amazed that the debate on this forum has come to this.

For the record Jon, I wasn't offended. I've found this discussion fascinating.

The curse of the last post before the fold.

That's just the way it is. McCain's age and health problems have some people more worried about Sarah Palin than they would be if McCain were in his fifties and never had cancer.

Obama, if elected, is more likely to have someone try and assassinate him due to his skin color and "muslim socialist" fear-mongering.

It may be grim but these things are certainly possible.

Regional hegemony. It's the same reason Russia wouldn't do jack if we invaded Venezuela.


Well, I made this big long post on the polls and the likely electoral map on election night....

Flere: There better be a The Election in Cartoons Special :)

I don't think an assassination is a "virtual certainty", but I would certainly give it about a 10% chance of happening.

There are some PISSED OFF white people out there right now. Have you watched some of those YouTube videos?

I mean, yeah, the liberals were pissed off when W won again, but the hate for Obama transcends that, in my opinion. Racism and religious intolerance is a very, very powerful force. There are a lot of people out there that actually think a Muslim is about to take our presidency.

It scares me that there are actually people this poorly informed/this fucking stupid. It's one reason why I think there should be an intelligence test prior to voting.

There was another report on the radio yesterday about a "foiled assassination plot" from a white supremacist group. It certainly seems like some people are giving serious thought to an assassination. Hopefully all of the future plans are as dumb as the ones that already got caught.

I think it's pretty close at the extreme levels, though not being a member of either group, it's hard to say for sure.

Is hating Obama because someone thinks he's a Muslim really any worse than hating Bush because he orchestrated 9/11 and would nuke the middle east if elected?

So many dopes everywhere. And it's an excellent strategy to tie your opponent and his supporters to the dopes. Democrats are a lot better at doing that right now.

Every president faces assassination threats. Bush had a grenade thrown at him in Georgia. Obama's will get more press. Obama faces a larger risk, no doubt, but the difference is exaggerated when the media freaks out over some loser white supremacists who showed no ability to actually carry out what they'd like to.

If Bush survived 8 years, I feel pretty confident about the job the secret service is doing.

Satan just put on a coat as you and Jon agree on something :) :devil:

Those are two totally different types of hate. There is a difference between misguided hatred over policy and misguided hatred over who someone is. The more hatred is at a personal level the more it drives people to do horrible things.

Interesting article regarding the Obama supporters in this election. I think his final statement summarizes what the conservatives believe will happen under Obama and what the Obama supporters will likely face after election day...........

Obama and the Politics of Crowds - WSJ.com

If you believe Bush personally ordered the murder of thousands (i.e., not as a result of a misguided war, but actually ordered the WTC buildings to be destroyed), that's pretty personal. That's not a policy difference.

Obama will have a ton of pressure to validate the excitement surrounding him. I have a feeling that excitement will be downplayed once he's safely in office, "hey, noboby said he had all the answers and could fix the country, etc".

I'm quite confident in the secret service as well. Obama might be a bigger target than we've had in a while because he "offends" a bigger collection of whack-jobs than other candidates, but I still wouldn't say an assassination is a given.

I'm gonna do this kind of quick (oddly enough because we're about to go stand in line to vote) but let me hit some highlights of the points of disagreement. Some of the items are going to have to be limited to "key concepts" (or making something a key concept) since I'm both trying to be brief & because complex details aren't always even available (as is true with all candidates).

Working from bullet points at Barack Obama and Joe Biden: The Change We Need | Policy Issues
(I'll hit my differences with his positions stated there)

* Obama's Stance on the Economy -- I don't believe for a second his claim of "provide 95 percent of working Americans the tax relief they need". The tax relief "we need" is cutting back on the punitive attitude toward success. I'm a flat tax guy by & large.

*Obama's Stance on Education -- I'm a staunch support of NCLBA's basic mission, and my harshest criticism of it is that it is far too lenient. Having lived with the "Hope Grant" for a number of years here in Georgia, I believe a great deal of the money put toward an effort to "make college affordable to all Americans" is simply wasted.

* Obama's Stance on Energy -- Incredibly vague about his various pie-in-the-sky initiatives & more specifically how he intends to pay for them without putting an unreasonable burden on employers/manufacturers/etc. I also do not trust him in the least not to fall for the junk science that gets passed around like candy.

* Obama's Stance on Foreign Policy -- I oppose "direct diplomacy without preconditions" with Iran, I oppose the creation of a Palestinian state, I'm almost violent in my opposition of a $50 billion increase in foreign assistance, I find his claim that he will "secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years" downright laughable, even worse his stated goal of "a world without nuclear weapons", oppose his intention to normalize relations with Cuba ... good grief I could be at this one a while, hopefully this will suffice.

* Obama's Stance on Health Care -- I adamantly oppose forcing employers to take on the burden of employee health insurance and even more strongly oppose his plan to pay for his unproven strategy by rolling back recent adminstration tax cuts.

* Obama's Stance on Homeland Security -- I do not believe for an instant his claim of willingness to use military force without hesitation, I believe the strategy of trying to win "the battle of ideas" is a waste of time when dealing with animals, I believe he's a damned fool to think opening consulates is going to make an iota of difference in some areas, I believe his efforts to end the policy of keeping an nuclear capability "ready to launch on a moment's notice" are an incredibly invitation to disaster, I believe his intention to increase the power of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board is a fool's errand,

* Obama's Stance on Iraq -- I believe his stated intention of a complete withdrawal on a known timetable is based on the faulty assumption that they will be capable of complete self-government in the foreseeable future.

And that's without even getting to the "More Issues" section of various domestic topics where it looks like my disagreement rate is at least equal if not higher. I figure there's probably an adequate number of examples in the above to satisfy what you were looking for.

Note: I started this before we left to go vote, wife was ready to leave so I had to finish it when I returned.

Who are McCain and Palin playing to right now? It's not just some random supporters and dopes. McCain and Palin are actively trying to connect the dots between Obama and Muslim terrorists. Rare was the time when either McCain or Palin actively railed against their crowds or anyone in them who would stir up these kind of extremist views.

I didn't see Kerry out there trying to link Bush/Cheney to the Illuminati, although I see a bunch of web sites that do.

I don't think I've ever seen or heard a single person who plans to vote for Obama suggest that he will be a perfect president that will solve all our nation's problems.

So according to the writer Obama's popularity is a bad thing because it reminds him of unsuccessful leaders in third world countries who were at one point popular and that Americans' faith in liberty has begun to crack. Another brilliant article from the WSJ opinion section, they've been on a roll the past few months.

Y'know, just because he "isn't a Muslim" (as everyone keeps reminding us) doesn't mean such ties could not or do not exist.

Fox has it as 47-44 Obama nationally, but there's a pretty big red flag on this, they changed the Party ID weighting (+7 D in the last poll to +1.8 D in this one).. talk about crafting the 'facts' to your viewpoint.

But (as we all know at this point) the national numbers really don't mean jack.

Except, to argue that there IS such ties after the vast digging that everyone's done... if there was even a hint of such things it would have brought out, instead of being used as non-specific smears for months on end.

Agreed. I noticed that as well. The margin should be around a 3 point nod to the Democrats to provide best results.

Agreed, I'm just interested to see how it gets spun. What's that Aggassi quote? "Image is everything?"

{shrug} I've already gotten beyond that point I guess. At this point, I'm just so impressed by the magnificent job his handlers have done staying behind the curtain that I'm not confident we'll ever know who all of them are for sure. Do I believe there are Muslim extremists in their number? Yeah. But I'm not the least bit convinced they could have been this stealthy if they were the sum total of the group.

Wow. Now that's a conspiracy theory.

Unless you believe that AND had relatives that died in the buildings/crashes, it still isn't personal. Bush isn't a personal threat to one's well being. When crazies like white supremacists go to kill, or plot with a true intent to kill, it is usually because of some delusion that the target is a direct personal threat to their well being. The worst white supremacy meetings I have seen taped are usually geared towards that kind of personal fear. (" 'They' will steal your jobs, your women, your money, your heritage, your nation, ect ect.")

Why would that produce the best results?

:eek:

wow.

So, basically, Jon thinks Obama signals the downfall of society largely because he doesn't believe his stances on the issues, not because he thinks his stances are poor. It seems like most of his reasons for disagreeing with Obama are "I don't believe this..." (and a few "I don't believe this is a good idea", such as foreign policy)

Well, back to the actual election for a moment... it seems to me that today/tomorrow represent a serious last chance for a salvage-the-campaign issue for McCain and company, if they see their chances the way I do (bleak).

With the talk about an emerging plan for the FDIC (or someone) to go out and guaranteed millions of bad mortgages as a stabilization plan and/or "main street bailout," there are bound to be a pretty fair number of people, like me, who are likely to have an axe to grind. I'm aware that we are in crisis, and that the standard line for a political candidate is just to pander here, but truth be told -- I'm really pretty incensed at the notion that my neighbor who has half the income but twice the house that I do because he made a risky/stupid buying decision a few years ago is going to get a massive "protection" while I, as someone who acted prudently and bought within my means is going to pay for it.

As a politician whose strong suit has long been "straight talk," this is the sort of interventionist stuff that Senator McCain really scores points with, when he derides it as inappropriate. One of the things that I used to really like about McCain was his ability and willingness to stake out a fairly tough position because he thought the principle was correct. That was, to be candid, the John McCain that got me really interested back in New Hampshire in 2000 (and saddened in South Carolina a week or two later).

Alas, I think the latest version of Senator McCain has turned too populist and pandering to get to that position in any easy way. And, truth be told, it's a longshot anyway.

But I can't be alone in saying I'd gain a ton of respect for anyone who stands up and says that there's something inherently unfair about that sort of proposal... even if it is the latest thing being propped up as "necessary to stave off an economic collapse" or whatever the argument of the day is. Maybe that politician will be our lame duck President, and if so, I'll tip my cap for the first time in a fair while.

McCain needs a Hail Mary. Maybe it's coming out and suggesting that reckless borrowers, irresponsible lenders and out-of-control financiers should all just bend over and take what's coming to them, and the rest of us will pull through whatever we have to until the dust settles.

This is slightly OT but important; If you live(d) in Somalia or Iraq, Bush was DEFINITELY a personal threat to your well-being. If you live in Pakistan now, Obama is DEFINITELY a threat to your well-being.

Don't know if this qualifies as a hail mary, but I haven't seen anyone comment on what I thought was an utterly bizarre McCain ad last night.

"Barak Obama. Not ready.....Yet."

Is that ad conceding the ideas battle to Obama? Seems to go against everything McCain has said since the third debate. And it points to what has been the biggest liability of the McCain campaign--the inability to find and stick with a message that resonates with the voting masses.

As an aside, it strikes me you can have a lot of fun with that tag line...

"This election isn't over....Yet."
"John McCain, not dead....Yet."
etc.

Really too early to confirm, but it looks like the Dole "Godless" ad, either had no effect, or hurt their cause, the latest polls in NC put her opponent (Kay Hagen) up six points.

If this post doesn't show how out of touch with reality you are, nothing ever will. Basically, the man is not white, and his middle name is Hussein. He must be in league with the terrorists!

Seriously doubt the ad was out before the polling was done. Maybe I'm wrong, though.

Q--

One of the problems with McCain's ADD campaign messaging is that it will be hard for anyone to see a position shift (even one with the possible resonance of the FDIC thing you mention) as anything but more flailing.

Had he stayed on one message--even a bad one--it would have made a last minute move seem bold. Now, it would just seem kind of sad.

He's an empty suit who proposes little more than redistributing the wealth from the people who earn it to those that haven't, and who appears to have little more on his mind than appeasing the lowest common denominators both at home & abroad. I wouldn't trust him to run a hot knife through warm butter much less a country ... but believe me, it not because he's multi-racial, bi-racial, extraterrestrial, polka dotted or is missing the third toe on his left foot. He's just another useful idiot, whether his name is Sheik Hussein Obama or BillyJoe RayBob Johnson.

I love when people don't like Obama that it must be because we're racist. Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that he's going to destroy any incentive to make something of yourself in this country because those who do very well will be penalized and those who don't will be helped along.

I can not believe you think the man is a terrorist or has terrorist ties. You voted for Bush(I am assuming correct?) knowing that his family has done business with the Saudis who btw were responsible for 9/11. (Saudi nationals to be exact.)

You have to be kidding me. Did people stop trying to make money when Clinton was president?

I think what Jon is trying to say (as I feel the same way) is that Obama is saying he is going to be a centrist when his voting record is far left. When the public is not willing to look at a candidate's record and only listens to what comes out of their mouth, it is a dangerous precedent to set. Mainly because the public is showing that it doesn't matter what you do, but what you say, etc., etc.

Sure they did. Don't you remember how horrible the economy was under Clinton? People stopped trying to make money, stopped hiring workers, and sat around and waited for the welfare checks to roll in. And the capital gains tax was so high that no one invested in the stock market. The Dow was always dropping. Oh, and the budget deficit was HUGE by the end of his presidency.

Wait, did you say Clinton or Bush? :D

I heart you.... *pause* no homo.

Don't make too much sense or you might upset some people.

Yep, look how that turned out for Ronald "The Great Communicator" Reagan.

Didn't you just accuse the Liberals of circle jerking?

There's a lot of stuff being said to get elected (or more specifically, to get the turn out needed to get elected). There is also a lot of mechanisms behind the scenes to tabulate favors, which will come due after inaguration. There has not been a single exception to this in any presidency in my lifetime and Obama/McCain will be no different. Those favors will result in appointments, legislations, expenditures and executive orders. With Obama, you may have a "good feeling" about him but what about the people behind the scenes? Bush had to have a Cheney to wield any influence, whom will Obama rely upon? There are many that simply want the opposition out of power and that is the prime motivation despite the words to hide that. Will that be enough to sustain through four years?

How could he make too much sense.. he's not making any at all!

This is the funniest thing I've read since the whole craziness about Microsoft's anti-trust suit causing the dot-com crash. I love this board!

"Hey Mark, how's that million dollar idea of yours coming along?"
"I fuckin' dropped it man. Have you seen the tax rate those millionaires pay? Fuck that shit."
"Good point man. Hey, hold the mayo on that burger, will ya?"

Do you know? I have more hope behind who Obama will put in place than McCain. When it comes down to it, it is not about his personality, or his charisma to me (though having to listen to McCain trying to make speeches for the next four years makes me want to blow my brains out), it is about my world view and which candidate most closely conforms to it. Obama is much, much, much closer than McCain.

Start making sense, and we'll all be shocked.

Is this your first election?

I don't have a problem with the honeymoon stage of any Presidency. People will celebrate the end of the Bush-era. People will celebrate the first black President. His initial popularity rating will be in the 60's or 70's I'd imagine. Will it sustaine for 4 years? I doubt it, but I think Obama will be an 8-year President.

This is a very good point to bring up, who the winning candidate is going to surround themselves with after the election.

As you mentioned, political favors get called in by the people who helped get the winner elected. W had to pay off outstanding favors from both his campaign and his father's administration. Clinton had a ton to repay as well from his runs for the governorship and his presidential campaign. McCain no doubt has many calls coming his way if he wins, due to almost 30 years of Congressional and Senate campaigns, plus his presidential runs from 2000 and this year.

Obama will also have some favors that will be called in, but he will have comparatively fewer than the person he is running against, as well as the past few presidents. If he wins, he will have a lot more freedom to put people into posts on merit, not to repay a political favor. Whether or not he does is one thing, but the opportunity should exist.

Why would I, if I was rich, stay in this country? Why would I keep my money here? Why would I keep my business here? I wouldn't. I'd take it, find somewhere else, and go with it. Where, I have no clue because I'm not rich enough to have ever researched it.

I am absolutely frightened on a nightly basis how much closer we are to watching socialism take over this country. It's been a process that started in the 30s but then it was a need. Unfortunately, once they opened Pandora's box, nobody had the guts to be the one to put all the programs away and now we are starting, and will end up, crashing out of the world picture because of it.

What's sadder is the fact that it didn't have to be this way but unfortunately it will be because the US has become a nation of individuals who panic when things don't always go well and don't understand that sometimes you have to go back to go forward.

Understand, this is not a defense of the current administration but is generally a condemnation of just about all of them since Truman really.

How much of the production and output of industries in this country are slated to be taken over and controlled by the government? People seem to have lost the meaning of the word socialism, and just equate it with higher taxes.

Try. Research away. Find a country with the same level of living where you can make the same kind of money as you can here. Find one that is not even more socialist, that doesn't have even higher taxes and even more people on the dole. Good luck. We'll be right here waiting.

Read whatever you want, it doesn't make your earlier statement any less ridiculous.

To quote a great doctor: Don't make too much sense or you might upset some people.

And that is where we differ. Neither candidate conforms to my "world view". In fact, I believe that we will see pretty much the same kind of things we saw in the past. That's the part that really bugs me - people thinking that something brand new will take place in Washington DC. That is only true for those that do not know anything prior to 2000. The Carter presidency (along with a Dem Congress led by Tip O'Neill) happened during my late HS and college years (the age some of you are at right now). I also know, as all of us do, what it was like during a Bush2 presidency with a Rep congress. The Democrat platform is not revolutionary - it is very similar to all of the Democratic candidates since Carter in 1980. It can't be because there is a lot of history, precedent and constituents behind that. It will simply be a shift from a definite Rep politics to a Dem one - which has happened before. An Obama administration will have a lot of familiar faces - people that know how Washington works. It will be a cultural shift but in a long-term view, it won't be anything new (just "new" compared to what we've had the past 8 years). Now if we had a charismatic third-party candidate favored to win this election...

Medicine's not going to be socialized under him?

Banks are already becoming socialized. Will this not continue under him?

Ready for the next one? Auto industry will be socialized within 10 years. Mark it down.

I'm pretty sure if I'm rich, I can live however I want, wherever I want. (within reason)

I disagree to some extent, cartman. There may be less individual connections but I am thinking more of institutions and special interest groups that have funded a good part of the campaign and are taking active steps to turn out the votes.

You really don't know what you're talking about. In almost any way you want to measure Truman was to the left of Obama on economics.

And some people need to recognize that Ayn Rand had not even a rudimentary understanding of economics. I liked Atlas Shrugged. Even my name on this board is derived from the book. I also enjoyed reading a variety of Rand's fiction and non-fiction works. However, to believe, like Rand did, that all income tax decreases any incentive to produce is as ridiculous as believing Adam Dunn would get 30 to 50 extra hits a season if he would just choke up on the bat when faced with two strikes. Oh, never mind.

I believe medical insurance is going to be socialized. If we can scrap Medicare/Medicade/SCHIP/TRICARE and replace it with a global health care plan, that would be infinitely preferable to the way things are now. Instead of just doing it, like every other industrialized western nation, we half ass it with the four programs I listed above.

There is a difference between making a less than controlling investment and the state taking control. I do not see the US taking over JPMorganChase, Citibank, Well Fargo or any other core bank.
It wasn't socialism when Chrysler got bailed out in '80. Any plan to help the automakers is going to follow closely that same blueprint.

Health insurance companies are just asking to be socialized.

I meant to say that the government is going to get into the Health Insurance business. Since the state would control this insurance agency, that would be considered socialized.

And where is that? Fantasy Island? Because what you describe you want doesn't exist. So, unless you are talking "buy your own country" rich, you are much better off in the US by your own definition of what you want.

I remember the belly-aching of the Clinton years. How he was going to raise taxes and ruin the economy. Is that what happened? The world is not going to end, we are not going to become the new USSR, etc. etc.

Geeze. I think I'm grown enough that if my candidate was losing, I wouldn't begin the "it's the end of the world" thing. I wasn't happy when Clinton got elected either time (and I'll happily admit I was wrong), and I was happy when Bush 1 and Bush 2 got elected the first time (which I'll sadly admit I was wrong).

Dawg, which is why I will advocate that the majority party in Congress changes in the 2010 election (assuming an Obama executive).

Obviously, there have to be taxes......what the government believes should be taxes and what should be the taxes is quite different.

Diamondbacks with Dunn 22-22

Reds without Dunn 22-22

He's a real difference maker.

I'm not one of those people. I can tell you what is going to happen, and it will be history repeating itself. The first two years, Obama is going to push through the most extreme parts of his plan. People (after initially loving him during the homey-moon/Camelot reborn phase), will begin turning on him, and his popularity will drop. After those two years, he'll moderate and begin to move some of the most popular parts of his plans (which will probably have changed since when he was elected). He'll quite possibly be dealing with one side of Congress being controlled by the opposing party by then (probably the house. If not in control, at least holding many more seats), and most things will end up being stagnant/grid-locked (which is right up your alley).

Now, the question will be if he is able to regain popularity and show true leadership in those final two years enough to be relected. It will also depend on who is running against him (Palin would assure his relection). Also, will he win, yet lose more of congress.

But what is not going to happen? He'll not turn the national religion to Muslim, sell nukes to Osama, or make us a communist state.

How exactly would that work?