CE Week #9: “We’re Heading Left Once Again”
The test for the next president is whether he can use the powers of government to act on behalf of Americans. That’s a liberal idea.
John McCain’s “Joe the Plumber” would no doubt like to have a beer with Sarah Palin’s “Joe Six-Pack.” In truth, Joe Wurzelbacher isn’t a licensed plumber and Joe Six-Pack is a horrible cliché, but no matter. They’re cultural kin to the iconic “Average Joe” who was part of Richard Nixon’s “Silent Majority” in the early 1970s and Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority in the 1980s. But conservative majorities come and go. If the polls are to be believed, today’s hard-strapped Joes have more in common politically with Joe Biden. And millions of them are preparing to do something that they never thought they’d do in a million years—vote for a black guy with the middle name Hussein for president of the United States.
Even if Joe stays Republican, Barack Obama will still likely win. That’s because he has built a huge base of non-Joes—better-educated, younger whites, as well as women and minorities. These voters are the future of the electorate and they’re progressive. If they turn out in the numbers expected, they could restructure American politics for a generation.
For all the statistical permutations, analyzing the makeup of the American electorate for the past half-century is fairly simple. About 40 percent of voters are reliable Democrats (whether they call themselves liberals or not), 40 percent are conservative Republicans (a term starting to lose its coherence), and the shape of our politics is determined by the 20 percent in the middle, mostly independents.
Since about 1980, we’ve been living in a center-right America, but we’re center-center now, and likely headed left. Even if McCain pulls an upset, the Democratic Congress would nudge him leftward on issues like alternative energy and taxes (and his health-care plan would be DOA). Should Obama win, he will press hard for his ambitious agenda, even, aides say, at the risk of being a one-term president. Then it would all be about execution.
If Obama moves “smart left” next year, he will have succeeded in rewriting the American social contract—the obligations of the government to the people on the economy, energy, health care and education. But if we see a revival of the dumb left with old-fashioned capitulation to interest groups and a series of rookie mistakes on foreign policy, even a big Democratic victory next month would be a speed bump on the Ronald Reagan highway.
Most voters are neither Limbaugh dittoheads nor ACORN activists. They’re pragmatic centrists who decided they liked Obama when he reminded them more of Will Smith than Jesse Jackson. They liked that he tried to calm their fears rather than express their anger. But this election is about something deeper than temperament. When people are scared, whether it’s after 9/11 or heading into a recession, they turn to government for protection. Cultural issues like gay marriage and resentment of elites fade. Even though voters don’t trust Washington any more than Wall Street, it’s their only option.
The question for the new president then becomes not whether he’s moving too fast but too slow. The test becomes whether he can use the powers of government to act on behalf of the American people. That is a fundamentally liberal idea.
Obama is lucky. Had Wall Street collapsed in 2009 instead of 2008, he would have had a much harder time shifting the political center of gravity. The critically important fact for Obama’s agenda is that a conservative Republican (President Bush) is the one who has essentially nationalized banks with more than a trillion dollars in public money. That discredits the GOP argument on spending but also on the proper role of government, which is essentially what separates liberals and conservatives on domestic issues. If Obama offers a big, budget-busting program next year, it will more likely be seen as fair than irresponsible.
At every campaign stop last week, McCain derided Obama’s statement to Joe the Plumber that we should be “spreading the wealth around.” In the old center-right world, such an idea would be offensive to many voters because it sounds socialistic—grabbing money from taxpayers and putting it in someone else’s pocket. But the cold war is over (taking the sting out of cries of socialism), and a lot has changed in the past month. Using taxpayer dollars to bail out colossally greedy and incompetent bankers is “spreading the wealth around,” too. Voters are beginning to figure that if banks facing bankruptcy deserve the government’s help, maybe people facing bankruptcy do as well.
Jon Meacham is right that by the standards of a European-style welfare state, we will always be a relatively conservative country. But closer to home, the norm has not been consistently conservative over the course of the 20th century. If anything, the nation was more often center-left. Democrats controlled the House of Representatives—the “People’s House”—for six straight decades between 1930 and 1994 (with only a short exception). While many were Southern conservatives on race, the huge chunks of progressive legislation they swallowed over many years could choke an elephant.
When the GOP finally did get full control of Capitol Hill in 1994, what did they do with it? The reign of Tom DeLay was not conservative in any way that Edmund Burke would recognize. He led a band of radical Republicans who actually shut down the Congress to intervene in the case of a brain-dead woman in Florida— a move that will likely be remembered as the high-water mark of theocratic power in the United States.
At the presidential level, two Republicans, Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon, left almost every major element of the New Deal in place and added their own initiatives that sound right out of the 2008 Democratic Party platform. (Ike’s Interstate Highway System was the mother of all infrastructure projects, and Nixon gave us the Environmental Protection Agency.) Every GOP effort to undermine Social Security—the great emblem of domestic liberalism—failed by huge margins between 1936 and 2005. For all his talk, Ronald Reagan failed to reduce the size of government, much less dismantle the welfare state. His acolytes did succeed in the semantic crusade of wrecking the word “liberal,” though liberal-bashing is no longer potent politically in any large state except Texas.
The Schlesinger theory of the cycles of history still makes the most sense. Over the past century, we’ve moved in roughly 30-year cycles, from the Progressive Era to the laissez-faire 1920s to the New Deal to the Reagan years. As it happened, Arthur Schlesinger’s timing was a bit off. He dated the last burst of liberalism to the mid-1960s and thus expected a revival in the 1990s. But the conservative era arguably began in 1978 when Rep. William Steiger won approval of a bill that cut the capital-gains tax from 50 percent to 25 percent. We’re now exactly 30 years down the road from that.
Does that mean the country is still center-right if we fail to restore confiscatory tax levels? Hardly. Just because Democrats aren’t stupid enough anymore to go the Walter Mondale route and promise to raise everyone’s taxes doesn’t mean they are conceding the ideological argument. In fact, Obama has neutralized or even turned the tax issue to his advantage with positions on taxing the rich that would have once been easily dismissed as class warfare. And with his hawkish comments on bombing Pakistan if necessary to kill Osama bin Laden, we are moving past the time when a credible commitment to defend the United States militarily was the exclusive province of the Republican Party.
History does not repeat itself, but it can have a familiar ring. In the 1920s, Americans essentially believed that the private sector could solve any problem. After the Depression began, Congress was still deeply unpopular, as it is today. But once Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected in 1932 and proved in his first 100 days that he could dent the problem, the center moved left. While the Depression didn’t actually end for another eight years, the American people felt that at least the government was on their side.
Reagan’s revolution in 1980 was so striking that it conditioned a whole generation to believe it was permanent. Many scholars even believed the GOP had an “electoral lock” on the presidency—an insurmountable geographical advantage in the Electoral College. Bill Clinton’s victories in 1992 and 1996 didn’t do much to change the map; he won both times with less than 50 percent of the vote, thanks to the presence of independent Ross Perot in those races.
Perot’s agenda—reducing the deficit—became Clinton’s. James Carville joked bitterly that he wanted to be reincarnated as the bond market because Wall Street was getting all the loving attention of the Clinton administration. The strategy paid off: the budget was balanced (in part through tax increases begun under President George H.W. Bush) and the economy surged. But Clinton ended up a bit like the character in the poem “Miniver Cheevy” by Edward Arlington Robinson. Miniver felt he was born too late for King Arthur’s Camelot; Clinton felt the same way about the ambitious Camelot of the 1960s.
Now we’re confronting a big deficit again—seemingly a recipe for a Democratic president to pull his liberal punches once more. But the political context has changed in ways that would give a President Obama more running room. Instead of a Democratic Congress that’s out of gas after 40 years in power, as Clinton faced, Obama would have allies on Capitol Hill determined to prove that they can address problems in a practical way. Instead of an almost religious devotion to the libertarian ideas of Alan Greenspan, we’re moving back toward what might be called neo-Keynesian economics. And instead of the unobstructed opposition of a new media powerhouse (talk radio), Obama would have the help of more than 2.5 million small contributors, eager to use the Web to mobilize on behalf of his program.
If he wins, Obama could run aground in a thousand ways next year. He will have to possess all the dexterity he’s shown during the campaign, and then some. If he fails to deliver, the country will go back to the center-right. But if he gets a few big things enacted in his first year, Barack Obama would have a fighting chance to move the country to a new place, or at least one we haven’t seen for a while. Leftward ho!
I think that should Obama be elected next week he will be one of the most revolutionary leaders of our generation. It will depend on how he chooses to step after his inauguration. How he chooses to lead the nation will also determine where his political career goes, whether he continues with a second term or whether he goes back to being a community planner in Chicago. Obama’s got a lot on his shoulders, he’s young and many don’t think he can handle it. I think he would do it better and calmer than many others and I think he just needs to be given the chance to prove himself. In my opinion Obama can take this nation to a place it hasn’t been and a level of openness and tolerance that it hasn’t seen since the hippies ran wild. I do not believe that Obama’s plan for redistributing the wealth will lead the country towards becoming a socialist nation I think that his days as a community planner in Chicago have given him a clue that no other president has had as to what it really is that the impoverished, inner city families really need to turn things around, he can reform public aid programs so that those who truly need them can get them and those who are abusing them are not allowed the privilege. I think that the people who are in that situation understand this and want a leader who will be working for them.
Connection: Obama’s connection to those people living in the inner city regions throughout the country will greatly increase their voter turnout so that they can put a leader in office who is truly working for them.
“For all the statistical permutations, analyzing the makeup of the American electorate for the past half-century is fairly simple. About 40 percent of voters are reliable Democrats (whether they call themselves liberals or not), 40 percent are conservative Republicans (a term starting to lose its coherence), and the shape of our politics is determined by the 20 percent in the middle, mostly independents.”
A question I would like to ask is how are the conservative Republicans beginning to lost their coherence? I understand that McCain is a bit more liberal on certain issues, but he is so, I believe, so he can gain those undecided voters, the 20% in the middle that will swing either way. After all, the majority of voters are moderate, so it would make sense to have a president with more moderate views. However, if a candidate attempts this, he will never be in the races, because the primaries (run by the elites) are typically very democratic or very republican, and will not vote for some guy that doesn’t have a defined stance.
This quote is EXACTLY what we talked about in class. If you want to open your textbooks up to page 239, you can see a table (figure 8.1), which depicts exactly what the article talked about. The graph looks kind of like a mountain, with it leaning a little more on the republican side. However, the peak in the middle is the “moderate” group, and will decide whether or not the Democrats will win or the Republicans will win. So it’s really those split-ticket voters that make the difference in our nation.
“Using taxpayer dollars to bail out colossally greedy and incompetent bankers is “spreading the wealth around,” too. Voters are beginning to figure that if banks facing bankruptcy deserve the government’s help, maybe people facing bankruptcy do as well.”
In response to this quote, there is a fine line between socialism and American Democracy; spreading the wealth would be socialism, but there are other elements of socialism too. As for the bailout, it is absolutely absurd that the taxpayers had to bailout big banks because of their poor choices. In a way it is an extent of socialism – using Americans hard earned dollar to stabilize the economy (although it may be necessary to keep the U.S. afloat). The truth in this quote amazes me because what is the difference between taxing people so banks can pay off their debt and using taxes to help people facing bankruptcy.
This article is completely correct in that America is on the peak of a mountain teetering back and forth. If McCain wins this election, America will stabilize (ideologically) and remain center-left. However if Obama wins the teetering will continue because then America will be moving left and it is unstable territory for many. Left leaning is going against the trend of the eras (Republican domination).
Connection: Americans are ideologically conservative, but operationally liberal. People want to be independent of the government, but when a crisis occurs they run to the government for protection.
In class we have been talking about how Obama is the beneficiary of the movement toward an economic recession. This article completely supports that statement. If it had happened in 2009 the Democrats would have all the blame, instead of the Republicans.
This is a very interesting article. Though Barack in no respect has won the election yet, he does have a pretty good chance at victory. The article nails-it when it mentions that Obama could not have had better timing (not stated exactly the same in the article, but close). Had their not been an economic decline, especially under a Republican President, I’m not so sure Obama would not have had as much of a fighting chance. I know it’s not politically correct to say, but, the country also may not have been so quick to accept a black candidate if the economy was in a better condition and the American people were more confident in their current situation. Barack really has done a good job at staying pretty centered on almost all issues. I also think the American people have changed greatly in the last thirty years. Some things that would have been huge hits on some people, aren’t affecting those people too much and they might actually vote for him! I am interested to see if this election and the next four years are going to change America, or maybe this is just the American people saying they would like to switch things up for a bit. We will find out. This election should definitely be one for the books.
This article relates to directly to what we have learned about the rationale-choice theory. People vote according to what they believe will benefit them. Obviously America thinks that Obama will be the answer to our economic problems. The article also mentions how America may vote a new way this election. This is something we have talked much about in class.
To sum up this article, it basically argues that no matter which way the presidency goes, the actions in office are going to have to go more to the left. Even if McCain wins he will have to continue with the people’s demands, and in the nature of the times those demands mostly are set around the economy and finding alternate energy. These are normally more democratic positions, but as a faithful president elect, pretty much anyone in office would have to follow these demands or prepare for serious uproar by the electorate. On the other side of the equation, if Obama is elected president, he will have to put his actions and promises into order, fast! If the people do not see his promises met very quickly, or if he cannot have them accomplished until the very end of his first term, then he will face serious challenges in any reelection. He stresses the urgency in his speeches, so the people will stress their urgencies to see these commitments fulfilled as soon as possible.
As a side note, one remark that the author makes that caught my attention and that I agree with, is about the bank bail out. He writes, “Using taxpayer dollars to bail out colossally greedy and incompetent bankers is ’spreading the wealth around’, too”. This just goes to show that the rumors of our country turning socialist under Obama is just as absurd as the republicans claiming to be capitalist when they contradict their words by taking taxpayers dollars and giving it to the banks who screwed up in the first place (by not holding better screenings of their customers or having any exact dependability that they would ever be repaid from the loans). The author is right that if the wealth can be taken and condensed to just one employer/sector, then that is no less socialist then taking money from taxes and giving it to less fortunate people.
Connection: This article also reflects ties toward our reading about party realignment. The majority party for the last 8 years, and several decades after 1968, has been mainly run by the Republicans. With Bush’s general disapproval around the country, the Republicans are doing everything they can to make it clear that they won’t follow in his footsteps. However, the minorities who have been ignored for several years, only to be reinforced with their anger by Bush, are now rising up to strengthen the Democrats during such a critical election year. The economy needs to be fixed, oil’s expensive for now and will be completely gone later on, war and veteran/soldier concerns are reaching an all time peak similar to Vietnam, global warming and other environmental issues are more pending then every before, and a significant number of Americans are receiving so little education that they cannot even find their country on a world map! with such high expectations for Obama to fix all these damages, if he were to actually completely succeed, our country would reach a new era and a turning-point in multiple ways; the most important turning point, in my opinion, being a new trust in the government to get things done in times of crisis and to have trust in our commander and chief when all the odds are against him.
It seems to me that Obama’s success seems to be triangulation, a leaf taken from Bill Clinton’s book. While he’s advocating policies that many seem to decry as socialism, he’s advocating a strong militant stance against our enemies abroad. But will an Obama victory move us toward a more left leaning nation? I doubt it. As mentioned in the article, Reagan had such a strong “revolution” that many people felt the nation would become a bastion of conservative values. However, as we’ve learned, most people liked Reagan personally, but disagreed with his policies. This precedent leads me to believe that an Obama victory may increase his personal popularity, but the majority of people will hold onto their particular beliefs. It is largely a product of the last 8 years, as well as the massive deficit that Obama has successfully pulled ahead on the issue of the economy. And while I’m hopeful that the supposedly new Democratic Congress will aid a Presidential Obama, I’m wary of a Clinton repeat. He had more success in pushing his agenda through a Republican Congress, and I’m doubtful of the author’s assertion that the new faces in the coming elections are more helpful on the basis of party affiliation. Though if everything goes swimmingly, and Obama has an agenda that is greased on it’s way into law, then all the better. I’m confident, despite nay-sayers, he’s not going to push a purely socialist agenda. A left leaning nation would be an interesting thing to see, but I don’t see even a successful president changing things so much.
Is it such a bad thing that we’re headed left? No. Barack Obama will most likely win the election. For one, he has a whole lot of money and can pretty much buy out the election. And, like the article points out, Obama has won over a lot more “Joes” than McCain. So if Obama wins the election he will have the democratic congress and the whole government will basically be run by democrats. I think that more of the stuff that Obama wants to get done will actually get done because of the democratic congress, rather than a bunch of conflict between conservatives and liberals and republicans and democrats. Bills and acts and such will actually be getting passed. And hopefully that it won’t be like when Clinton was president in 1994 with the democratic congress.
I’m thinking that a liberal president will do America well because we really do need liberal ideas to help the terrible state of the economy and to help energy and environment issues be resolved. And once the big liberal surge is over there will be a conservative one where we elect a conservative president and a conservative congress. So its not like we’ll be a Liberal nation forever.
Connection: The differences between liberals and conservatives on page 192 in the text book and political ideology. Political ideology is a set of beliefs about politics, public policy, and public purpose. People are defined as being either a liberal or conservative. The differences between them include liberals wanting to tax the rich more, spend less on military and not go to war while conservatives believe that we should keep taxes low, maintain peace through strength and support military intervention.
It seems to me that Obama will win in a landslide, and maybe even make some inroads in the Solid South. I believe that he is going to make some radical changes if elected. He is trying to amass a huge lead in the popular vote and attempting to get record turnout, with those Obama will be able to claim the mandate of the people and push through a lot of legislation. The biggest concern I have is foreign oil. I know that gas prices are down at the moment, but they will be back up soon, maybe not at the levels they were, but it won’t be long before we are seeing over three dollars at the pump again. Personally I believe that that is the real reason for the economic downturn. Spending money only helps the economy if it is spent on your own country, not going to some country on a different continent. I think that the best thing Obama could do to get elected for a second term is lowball as soon as he gets into office. So that he has the time to make the changes that he is going to make.
Connection/Question:
We are on the cusp of a realignment with this election, not only are the Democrats (most likely) going to control the government, but we are (most likely) going to vote in an African American for president. This is a huge turning point for America, racism has been one of the ugliest vices that this country has had and I will be glad to be rid of it.
As stated in the article, “Should Obama win, he will press hard for his ambitious agenda, even, aides say, at the risk of being a one-term president. Then it would all be about execution.” I really hope this is not what Obama chooses to do if he is elected president. This election is a critical election, and it carries with it the chance to transform our politics into a new political era of a government dominated by the Democrats. Obama should choose to move “smart left” next year in order to let the Democrats be able to hold the White House for many elections to come. If he presses too hard for his “ambitious agenda,” the electorate will want to remove the party in power (the Democrats) in the 2012 election.
Connection: The article relates to one of the “three heads of a party”: party in government. As stated in the article, “Since about 1980, we’ve been living in a center-right America, but we’re center-center now, and likely headed left. Even if McCain pulls an upset, the Democratic Congress would nudge him leftward on issues like alternative energy and taxes.” This quote shows how much of an affect our two-party system has on politics. Most of our policy agenda is decided by partisanship, not bipartisanship. This leaves our country, and our country’s government, divided.
“Americans are ideologically Conservative, but operationally Liberal.” This is the type of politics that our country is following at this moment, five days before the election. We have spent eight years ideologically conservative, with the war in Iraq and the thought of trickle down economics. Now Americans want a change in the policy of the federal government. Many people who would not be caught dead voting for an African-American President, because of their family’s beliefs or because of the region of the country that they live in, are in five days going to vote for an African-American President. This is because they are ready for the new Liberal ideas of Barack Obama. It is a well-known fact. Of course after eight years of failed policy, an unjustified war in the eyes of the Liberals, and a failing economy, the people of the United States are going to want a change. I agree with the author of this article as well, that if Barack Obama can continue his outstanding run into the Presidency, and can get some important things done within the first year of his four year term, then he will classified as the success story that people want him to be. If he does not, and the economy gets worse or even does not get better, then the American people will want their Conservative past back.
Connection: I connected to the quote from chapter six because I feel like this is exactly what is happening in American Politics this election. Now that a candidate finally has the guts to propose some Liberal policies the American people are backing him to see if he will deliver them through these hard times.
This election could mark a major shift in politics—a shift to the left. Americans, in general, are not very pleased with Republicans at the moment; the latest congressional election proves that the Democrats are making ground. The economic crisis, like the Depression did years ago, puts the Democrats at a great advantage. When many Americans are in dire need of financial aid, the idea of “spreading the wealth around” is probably fairly appealing. The people are looking for a strong leader and an image of hope in a new future. McCain’s short temper and angry, wrinkled brow does not carry with it that image. Obama is going to be greatly aided by the support of his “non-Joe’s” given the fact that better-educated individuals, women, and minorities are likely to be motivated to go to the polls. In many ways, this support group may be even more adventitious than a base of Average Joes. The fact that Obama has, on his own, received an unprecedented amount of campaign contributions proves that he has a strong force backing him up. We are likely to witness a Democratic political sweep in the upcoming election.
Connection: Critical Election- This year has the possibility of being a critical election, breaking the streak of primarily Republican dominance and, at least temporally, interrupting the divided era of government.
I think this article shows just how far America has come in terms of race. Just over 40 years ago blacks weren’t even allowed to vote in a presidential election, and now we have a black man running for president. And like this article says, “millions are preparing to do something they never thought they’d do- vote for a black man.” I truly do respect Barack Obama for the range of different people he has attracted: the better-educated, younger whites, and women and minorities. These people are really the ones who will make a difference come Election Day. But like Mr. Kautzman has been saying in class, if these people don’t show up to vote, Obama could be in real trouble. I think that what this article is saying is that it’s time for America to maybe start thinking a little bit more on the ‘left’ side of things. And ultimately, this is inevitable. Because even if McCain is elected, our Democratic Congress will most likely ‘nudge him leftward.’ But I would say that it is certainly time for a Democrat to come into office and lead the country a little more left. Especially considering our economic problem going on at this moment in time.
Connection:
This article touches base on a few ideas that relate to the Bradley Effect. This article says that many are getting ready to vote for the first black president, something in which they thought they would never do. However, it is not certain whether people really do believe this, or are just saying so. This is unfortunate for Obama, because these are the type of people he is counting on to win him this election, and they could potentially not show up to support hi
I am not sure how I feel about this article. It was hard to contain all of the information that the author talked about because it was so dang long. One thing that I thought interesting was the statistics that were given about the number of Democratic, Republican, and Independent voters. The article said that 40% of voters are Democrat, 40% are Republican, and 20% are Independent. These numbers seems to contradict what we have been reading in our textbooks. I can see how the author is labeling voters and the people as center-left. I think that it was said by Mr. Kautzman, that most Americans are conservative at heart but vote liberally. But I think with that said and with that probably being fact, then if John McCain is elected then nothing will really get done because he will probably have to face a Democratic and left leaning country. But if Obama is elected, then he will have no trouble getting what he wants done whenever he wants it done. He will have to prove himself to the country that he can take control and get this country under his belt, even though he may not have the “experience”.
Connection: Like I talked about above, the numbers of party affiliation don’t seem to match up with what we are talking about in class. Democratic and Republican numbers should be lower and the Independent number should be way higher.
This article brought up a lot of good points. Our country has been ran in a predominantly republican fashion for quite a long time now. The problems that we are facing, like the economy and the war in Iraq, have all been produced by our republican government. So perhaps a party change in the white house would bring about some good. I do not know, however, if electing a democratic president is enough to fix all of the problems that the nation is facing. I think that the democratic party has a huge advantage not only because of the public’s distaste for president Bush’s policies, but also because the solutions that the country needs all involve the government helping out the public. That is basically a democratic staple in policies. Also, I wonder if there are going to be any independent candidates who will end up impacting the outcome of the election like it has in the past. Overall I do not think that it really matters who ends up getting elected because if Obama wins he is going to get assassinated and if McCain wins he is going to have a heart attack and die from all of the stress of running the country and then we are going to be stuck with either Palin or Biden.
This article can be connected to “Party Realignment”. If Obama gets elected, the democratic party will control both congress and the white house, and a major shift in policy will occur throughout the country due to the quick change from republican leadership to democratic leadership.
There were a few quotes that caught my immediate attention while reading this article, and so I wish to address my views concerning each of them.
“The test becomes whether he can use the powers of government to act on behalf of the American people. That is a fundamentally liberal idea” (Jonathan Alter). Even though this article is really a mixture of several important topics for discussion, this quote sums up the main point and brings the focus back to the liberal versus conservative debate.
“Millions of them [average Joes] are preparing to do something that they never thought they’d do in a million years—vote for a black guy with the middle name Hussein for president of the United States” (Jonathan Alter). This notion may be correct for the time being, but we haven’t reached Election Day just yet. There’s still a great chance that secret racists could pull their vote away from Barack Obama next Tuesday simply because they couldn’t possibly elect an African-American to be president of the United States. Perhaps we as a nation really have moved past the color issue, but the election results could very well indicate otherwise.
“History does not repeat itself, but it can have a familiar ring. In the 1920s, Americans essentially believed that the private sector could solve any problem” (Jonathan Alter). During the prosperity of the 1920s, many Americans believed success went to those who deserved it. Given that attitude, the unemployment brought by the depression was a crushing blow. If the economic system really distributed rewards on the basis of merit, those who lost their jobs had to conclude that it was their own fault. These attitudes declined after the New Deal began, however.
Connection: Single-Party Dealignment (a.k.a. the gradual disengagement of people and politicians from the Republican Party, as seen in part by shrinking party identification). America truly does seem to be shifting more to the left these days. If Barack Obama wins the election and does good things with the presidency, one can expect the Democratic Party to keep gaining strength. The current economic state may be influencing some voters to support Obama in this election, so hopefully he can live up to his standards if elected next Tuesday. Otherwise, America might keep following the same predictable political path: shifting to the right, centering between the parties, shifting to the left, etc.
I would first like to start out by asking who are these people who are relating Obama to Will Smith? Will Smith is about ten times better than Obama (in everyway except being highly politically active). And I am sure most people would agree because most people will watch a movie rather than a political debate. I do not fully agree with this author as he is suggesting that the country is leaning leftward. Maybe in this campaign, but if you look at the 2000 poll it shows that 41percent labeled themselves independents(Catholics, Jews, poor whites, Southerners) even though that was eight years ago. Downs Model shows that is goes independents, to slightly conservative, and then to slightly liberal. I think as move along, if people are as politically active as they are today, we will see even more independents because people really don’t know what is going on. People right now may be leaning liberal because they want change, a new face and someone unrelated to George Bush. That person just happens to be Obama who happens to be liberal. If this was the face of John McCain, does this mean the country will be leaning towards the right?
Like we have discussed in class, everyone is focusing on the matters that are effecting our country right now, that we don’t really take into consideration the other factors that should be in play when picking a president to run our country. Right now, we are focusing on taxes and the economy, and not so much with the other things. What if they economy somehow miraculously fixes itself and we are no longer in a depressed state, and we have elected a president that knows nothing about energy but alot about the economy, a non-issue now. Whether we “head” left or right on the political spectrum, no one is going to be able to affect the country in the way they are promising, if they can and they can do it successfully, then wow. Americans really expect to have a perfect president, someone who is moderate in beliefs so they can incorporate good qualities from each party into their practices to make the country great. The truth is, McCain can still win this thing. And although Obama is the predicted outcome, you still never know.
NO CREDIT – Need more substantive connection in the future.
“We will always be a relatively conservative country”. I must admit that that statement will almost undoubtedly hold true. But also, with the weakness in the Republican Party, and the sluggish economy, we might have s shift to the left. Let’s face it, if Barack Obama wins the election, America has made a huge leap to the left, with the House of Reps. and the Senate, and the White House all dominated by liberal ideology, as a Republican might say, “is like writing a ‘blank check’ to the Democratic Party”. But would that be such a bad idea, the last Democratic president left office with a surplus… Now, the Republican president will leave with a massive debt, which will hopefully be under 12 trillion dollars. We need a Democrat to help us right the economy and clean up some of that debt.
If McCain wins, who is a more centralist Republican, we might also get out of the (hopefully temporary) recession unscathed. But, I think that the Americans will want “change”, the old system is not working, so we need progressive ideas to help our economy.
“This is what it is, as opposed to what it used to be” (Immortal Technique, “That’s What It Is”). Times have changed and we need a more adaptive and progressive form of reform and I think that America will vote that way. Also, having a “Democratic Flush” would not be such a bad idea as you are almost assured that things will get done, and that we can try things to help our anemic economy.
Connection: We discussed in class “split-ticket voting”. People are afraid of having a straight Republican or Democratic group making out laws and drastically reforming our government. People like gridlock, not too much change at one time. But in this instance, if our economy has to wait for our government to come to a sloppy resolution, it might be too late.
This article brings up the point of view that most Americans are centrists. That is what our book states as well. However, the essay we just read stated that Americans are becoming more partisan. Another point I was confused on: the country has been more conservative in the recent era. When Clinton won is was greatly because of Ross Perot. But, the media has a liberal slant so wouldn’t that help the democratic party? Why is America a conservative country? Also, why does, according to the Schlesinger theory, the dominance of politics rotate in 30 year sections? I think the nation is starting to lean left. It only makes sense when the economy is like it is and Obama is ahead in the polls. I think it is similar to the great depression. It has a “similar ring” to the past. I don’t think I like that the country is moving left but I definitely think it is. I guess we will know by Nov. 4.
connection: one of our vocab words was a realigning election. This could be one. “If he [Obama] gets a few big things enacted in his first year, Barack Obama would have a fighting chance to move the country to a new place, or at least one we haven’t seen for a while. Leftward ho!” I think this last line basically sums it up. One question though, exactly how long do the democrats have to remain in powere before it is considered a realigning election?
These campaigns with “Joe the Plumber” REALLY bother me. Why couldn’t the candidates say average Americans?! They have over used that saying and every time I hear it, I just want to tell them to stop and that they sound stupid repeating themselves 5 million times. Oh, and with Obama’s middle name being Hussein, who really cares!! It is his name. People should not associate him with being a terrorist just because Hussein was a terrorist. Does anyone associate a person named Jack with Jack the Ripper and assume he is a killer? I think not. However, apart from his middle name, researchers still think he might win. Many people support what Obama wants to change. With the economy fluctuating so much, it has made Obama stronger, but the thing is that the economy will continually be on an up-down pattern. If the economy gets better before the elections, will the polls favor McCain? People want the government to be on their side, so those who make average incomes would much rather have Obama as president than McCain, but those whose incomes are fairly high, do not want Obama because he claims that he will take away some of their money and “spread the wealth.” It’s all so difficult; as if no one will be happy with this election.
CONNECTION>>>
Well, I believe that this ties into coalition. People are taking the candidates’ words into large consideration, and believing their promises so voters continually are joining one candidate over the other in the race. However, just like LBJ promised not to send American boys to war, after he was elected president, he sent American boys to war. So, with all these promises being made, nothing is set in stone, and some promises might be too large for the new president to actually handle. Although, it is known that most promises are carried out, but you can never be too sure.
NO CREDIT – Not an accurate connection or use of the term “coalition”.
I agree with this author. Even if Obama loses our nation is still heading toward a more Liberal agenda. When the Economy heads south people always rally behind the Democratic Party. The author says it well in the last paragraph to, there are a thousand ways for Obama to ruin his presidency in the next year. Who would want to be president right now? One thing is for sure, it is going to take a lot to get our country back on track, and Obama plans on doing a lot more work than McCain. I also liked his statement on Joe the Plummer; “Using taxpayer dollars to bail out colossally greedy and incompetent bankers is “spreading the wealth around,” too. Voters are beginning to figure that if banks facing bankruptcy deserve the government’s help, maybe people facing bankruptcy do as well.” Connection class discussion- I couldn’t agree more, I also hate how McCain is portraying Joe the Plummer as some ordinary citizen, while he is going to be reeling in 250 K a year. Last time I checked 250 K a year is not exactly scraping to get by. I was also excited to hear that Joe the Plummer joined the McCain campaign trail and yes he publicly agreed that Obama is celebrating the death of Israel.
This article has some good points, but falters in its citation of facts. Like the article before this stated, Republicans have won the presidential race the last three of ten elections. How does this justify the statement “But conservative majorities come and go”? I find that very odd from someone who gets paid to write these articles. Just as much as conservative majorities go, so do liberal ones. “Voters are beginning to figure that if banks facing bankruptcy deserve the government’s help, maybe people facing bankruptcy do as well.” This quote also puzzles me. Where do you stop? Anyone who obtains vast amount of credit card debts because of self-control issues should be saved by the government? No. If that was the case, everyone would be on a spending rampage. The government will always help; I have my backup. Wrong. The backup used to be learning a good lesson from being so stupid with money. Now, it’s “let’s have the government solve my problems.” There are opportunities out there, although obviously not enough, for the unprivileged to work hard and achieve something great. If that is what our country is heading for, we have truly lost our sense of American pride and independence. We need to help the people truly in need, but should we help those that can’t afford luxurious items such as cable TV? Yes, that’s right. If you don’t have cable TV, you’re now below the poverty level in the United States. This is precisely how the once-great Roman Empire fell to dust – when the people become dependent on others for help when it’s not appropriate. From where I come from, that’s called laziness.
Connection: The advances in Obama’s “socialism” (no, it’s not fundamentally socialism, but some of his ideas are very socialistic) in the general election have attracted many people. I think this is because they need to blame someone – in this case President Bush. Bush may not be the best president, but he’s not been impeached has he? Everything he has done is legal. Those that are less fortunate are extremely attracted to Obama because they believe his agenda will give them more money in the pocketbook. This is interesting because calculations tell us that if his programs were to go into effect, the nation would gain $200 billion dollars in national debt every year. Now that is frightening.
This article is right. All signs are pointing to a Democratic ruled government. This is mostly coming about because of George W. Bush. He is a very un-liked president, and so people see him not so much as a man, but as the Republican Party. In turn, many people will blame the Republicans for all of the bad things: the war, the economy, etc. The Democrats won Congress in 2006, and, hopefully, if everything goes well on November 4, then we will have a Democratic president. I really see no way that McCain could get elected. He has an almost useless running mate that hasn’t really done what he had hoped for her to do. He has to try to come over the dead weight that is President Bush. And he’s really, really old. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want some senile old fart making decisions that could affect the rest of my life. There is the possibility that he could die in office, and then who would we e stuck with? Sarah Palin. And besides, McCain is way creepy. Have you ever seen him smile? That image sends chills down my spine. I’m pretty much positive that if Obama doesn’t win then I will most likely throw-up. It’s a plain and simple fact. Canada would look like a nice place to live if the unthinkable happened.
Connection: This article talked about how our country had started to lean much more towards the center ideologically. We are seeing now that we are getting less and less Independents, and probably more Democrats.
NO CREDIT – You could have come up with this post without really reading the article. You need to provide a little more substantiation and a lot less generalizing about the article.
This article had a number of points, many dealing with how America is moving from a center-right to a center-left. I find it interesting how many comparisons the author makes between now and some of the things that have happened in the past. The current deficit and the one we had in 1992 is a big one that I noticed. “Perot’s agenda—reducing the deficit—became Clinton’s. James Carville joked bitterly that he wanted to be reincarnated as the bond market because Wall Street was getting all the loving attention of the Clinton administration. The strategy paid off: the budget was balanced (in part through tax increases begun under President George H.W. Bush) and the economy surged… Now we’re confronting a big deficit again—seemingly a recipe for a Democratic president to pull his liberal punches once more.”
I also found the Schlesinger theory to be very interesting and also pretty true. It says that “Over the past century, we’ve moved in roughly 30-year cycles, from the Progressive Era to the laissez-faire 1920s to the New Deal to the Reagan years.” The article does say that the theory is a little off but the theory isn’t perfect and is liable to be off by a few years give or take. It will be interesting to see if the theory holds true for this next time period.
Connection: The second paragraph of the article talks about the base Obama has built which includes the better-educated, younger whites, as well as women and minorities. The last part can be connected to the new minority majority which is currently on the rise. If the Democrats can keep this base for the next fifty or so years, they will increase their chances of winning the elections.
If Obama plays his cards right then he will not be like Miniver who “felt he was born too late for King Arthur’s Camelot.” Instead Obama can bring around a new government to America. The Republicans have ruled for a long time in the White House and the Democrats have had everything else. If Obama wins, then the Democrats will have everything and America will be in for a new change to the left side. While the Republican’s had the White House, they at least had some say in what was to be going on. But with Democrats having the White house and the majority of Congress, there is little that the Republicans will be able to do. This will result in a new form of government.
I think that the rotation of the political parties is kind of like the theory of the “green house effect.” There are all of these theories that say that people are causing the change. The truth is that change is a natural thing. Just like the planet warming and cooling, the rotation of parties is bound to happen and there is not much that we are going to be able to do about it after it does. eventually the Republicans will take back over, but right now it is the Democrats turn.
Connection: This article helps to show that the political identification of America was about even at 40% Democrats, 40% Republican, and 20% Independent, but it is now more Democratic because many Independents shifted to the left Democratic party side.
This article actually was very well written and the point was well supported. The title of the article gives of an impression of a more liberal article. However the article was actually was fairly balanced and not very biased. I really liked this article, because it brought up some very interesting and valid points. For one thing, it talks about how most voters are not die-hard right-wing conservatives or flaming hard-core liberals. The author also talks about how some of the issues have moved from being just a one party issue, citing Obama’s comments about his willingness to use military force in Pakistan if it means killing Osama bin Laden. Another point the author brings up is that if Barack Obama wins (which the author and most of the polls predict), he will have a hard time to live up to the expectations set by both his promises and the people’s desperation caused by the economic crisis facing us right now. Whichever candidate becomes president will have to do a lot in order to meet expectations. Obama (I mention him because the author does, this applies to McCain too) has the chance to either become the new FDR or the new Hoover. However, if the author is right about the historical trend of this nation, then it is the Democrats turn to try to shine.
Connection: Party Dealignment/Party Neutrality. The author talks about how the parties have decreased in size and that most of Americans are centrists politically.
He is making it sound as if the economic issues are all the Republicans fault and that the Democrats can solve everything if they simply arn’t so blunt about it. The economic issues are not because of any one party or orginisation.
Also he does not seem to reolize that socialism and “shareing the wealth” is still somewhat taboo amongst many Americans and making that a huge point is not going to win over anyone relativly conservative. This goes along with his assumption that people want the government in their lives, that idea scares many.
Most of these capitalistic solutions don’t work because they are poluted by so many socialistic ideas, such attemted hybrids won’t work, but because less regulation is a Republican idea the problems in them get blamed on conservatives.
Last thing:”And instead of the unobstructed opposition of a new media powerhouse (talk radio)…” Does that really worry you, the HUGE chunk of media that the conservatives have a hold on, ‘oh no my child was listening to AM again’ yeah that sounds realistic. Gosh, leave us be with our one unadultured link to people nationwide. It’s not like you don’t have enough internet, T.V. and newspaper to counter that. Yeah, try passing another “fairness docterine” fairness my eye.
Connection: What the autor is talking about is a new party era where the whole nation will be left leaning with Democrats mostly in charge and possilby party realignment, almost a political revolution.
NO CREDIT – Proof read more carefully.
This author is a real genius. Of course we’re heading left again. It’s not hard to do, after the last eight years. Most people don’t advocate torture. Most people don’t advocate wire-tapping. Most people don’t advocate 4500 dead soldiers and no WMDs to show for it. Most people don’t advocate the Dow plummeting. Most people, whether they believe in it or not, don’t advocate global warming. Who advocates, or at least ignores, these things? The Bush Administration does, or tries anyway. What is the Bush Administration? It’s conservative. What’s the opposite of conservative? Liberal. Ergo, hard times with conservative leadership cause the populace not to want the conservative leadership. Then the people can only go one way away from the right, unless they invent a new direction. As America moves left, by cycle or otherwise, it will continue if times get better and it will end if times get worse. It’s really a straightforward thing. I think the thing we have to hope for is a president with good judgment. It’s not about a conservative or a liberal in office (or a semi-conservative and a religious liberal in office). If the new president can use good judgment to prune policies that need it and keep policies that are doing well, then America might have a fighting chance of coming out of our recent blunders alive. I think that labeling the direction America is going in is not a worthwhile endeavor. It would be nice just to get something done.
Connections: Obviously, America is moving slightly left because hard times came with conservative leadership. The president gets more credit or more blame. Also, the war in Iraq is unpopular because there have been insignificant victories and no WMDs. That means that soldiers are dying for a “cause” and not really for anything directly affecting the United States (besides oil).
I agree that the nation is headed towards the left. Based on what we have been reading in our textbooks, it is only plausible that this shift in power is occurring. The article states, “Since about 1980, we’ve been living in a center-right America, but we’re center-center now, and likely headed left.” There has been a lot of discontent with Bush’s presidency. We have learned that when there is discontent, the party in power is blamed, and is often replaced with the minority. The incumbents are thrown out. We have also learned that American politics is characterized by “political eras”. The Republicans have been in power for a long time; they are now met with a popular adversary who appeals to many interest groups and people. With all this taken into account, perhaps this really is the beginning of a new political era. Is the Schlesinger theory based on economic trends? It kind of confused me…If it is, then it is a opportune time for a shift in power. Like the article states, it has been thirty years AND the nation is experiencing an economic downturn.
Connection: “How Divided Are We?”
“How Divided Are We?” states that many of the centrists have now been gravitating toward specific parties. Based on this article, it is easy to see where these people are going. These independents are easily persuaded because they really don’t have a party. With the current state, it makes sense that they would lean towards the left. The Republicans are the party in power, so they receive the blame.
“The test for the next president is whether he can use the powers of government to act on behalf of Americans. That’s a liberal idea.” I have to agree with the author when he states that after a period of center right conservativism, our country is assuredly starting to lean left. Even John McCain is more of a liberal Republican. And for the first time in a while, there might be a Democratic landslide in the presidency, House, and Congress. So undeniably our country is going to change. And if Obama, if he wins the presidency, can act upon all his projected policies and get our nation out of this recession…then we might see the start to a new era of democracy and Democrats. However, like the author inferred, if the economy doesn’t get better–or even gets worse–and Obama can’t get any of his new legislations passed, then these four or eight years would just be a “speed bump on the Ronald Reagan highway.” Thus, Obama, if he indeed moves into the whitehouse, won’t be able to take a break from never-ending policies and will have to start his show the minute he swears his loyalty to the American people. However, his job has been made a lot easier for him. The fact that Bush’s approval rating is so low makes anybody but an old Republican look pretty appealing. Furthermore, timing of the stock market crash couldn’t be more suitable to Obama’s campaign. He has an opportunity to bring in fresh perspective and initiative on an issue associated merely with GOP’s failure…and only with a few days left to elections, it’s pretty safe to assume that the sky won’t fall in that amount of time and Obama doesn’t have to worry about other competitition stealing his spotlight.
Connection: Retrospective voting–”what have you done for me lately.” The Republican party right now is only associated with the bad and the ugly and voters are ready for something new…someone who will directly affect what they want to see get done. Hence, the lean to the left and liberalism.
Obama has just about everything on all of God’s green goodness on his side. He’s youthful, articulate, persuading, he’s got the market on his side, the opposing party in power is laying a path for him, he’s got big bucks, and his face is on just about every media outlet you can think of. But what I think that this author isn’t accounting for is the fact that the House is bleeding blue of the democrats. This may seem like a plus for Obama, but let me assure you, this isn’t. If we use history to base our predictions off of, a certain Bill Clinton definitely did not fare well with his comrades of blue. They actually didn’t even get anything done. So if I were a betting man…
But even besides that, I personally just don’t feel comfortable with that much power to the bluecoats. There’s no balance, and I’m certainly not just saying that because I’m a republican; I wouldn’t want a full republican staff either. There’s got to be a balance in between; that’s why we’ve been pretty constant in that area. If the scales are tipped, I feel that a lot is going to come crashing down.
Connection: The balance I speak of is called Split-Ticket voting, or voting not specifically on one party, but different parties for different offices.
“But this election is about something deeper than temperament. When people are scared, whether it’s after 9/11 or heading into a recession, they turn to government for protection. Cultural issues like gay marriage and resentment of elites fade. Even though voters don’t trust Washington any more than Wall Street, it’s their only option.”
Barack Obama is rigorously labeled as “socialist,” or some communist that wants to take YOUR well earned tax dollars and put into the hands of someone else. However, the “socialist” label isn’t exactly damaging Obama’s campaign; in fact, spreading the wealth is apparently what Americans want. Plus, socialism is already in effect, no denying that: “Using taxpayer dollars to bail out colossally greedy and incompetent bankers is “spreading the wealth around,” too. Voters are beginning to figure that if banks facing bankruptcy deserve the government’s help, maybe people facing bankruptcy do as well.” My parents, who are conservative republicans, and I actually just talked about this. I am an advocate for a more balanced distribution of wealth. My parents argue that they have worked from the bottom of the spectrum to where they are now, and because of that, they deserve to keep all, or most, of the money they earn. I argue that not everyone is granted necessary opportunities, the opportunities that my parents had/have…not everyone can afford to go to college, not everyone has a stable home life, not everyone can afford housing or food or other various life necessities. “Spreading the wealth,” doesn’t really take wealth away from the wealthy, it just takes a tiny portion to help those that really need it.
I agree with the author that the bailout was a socialistic thing to do. I think it was dumb of both Bush and McCain to support the bill and let it pass. It just makes way for Senator Obama’s socialistic ideas and justifies anything he might do in office, if he is elected. It was interesting reading about the thirty year cycle and seeing we are at that exact turning point. I have this gut feeling that Senator McCain will win the election. It is not just because I want him to win but the polls, not that I care very much about them, show Senator Obama losing ground in states. I think his momentum peaked too early and is now spending too much money. I remember the Terry Schiavo case. The main lawyer on her case came to our church and spoke to us about the details of the case. It was sad to hear the true facts that the media kept from the public. I find it funny that the author mentioned the popularity of Congress. People keep complaining, or gloating, that the Republican President Bush only has an approval rating of 25% and yet the Congress, which is Democrat in power, was at one point at 9% and has now gone up to 15% most likely because of the bailout.
Connection: We have talked about the mass media and how they are liberal in leaning. The Terry Schiavo case is a prime example. The media left out many details as to how she was and how much brain activity she had. People refer to her as “the brain-dead woman in Florida” and yet she was able to recognize her parents and laugh with them. I would not consider that brain dead.
NO CREDIT – Late.
In response to Ryan:
You made a few points with which I have to disagree. First of all, it did not seem to me that the author was blaming the Republicans for our economic situation; he was simply stating, and very few could argue with this, that many Americans blame Bush and his party for our current state. Also, Obama is far from socialist. Yes, he is more liberal with sharing funds than many of our past leaders, but he is still miles away from Marxism. Right now, millions of Americans are struggling financially, and many families are begging for help. As we discussed in an earlier unit, Americans are conservative in ideology but liberal in practice. When these families, struggling to make ends meet, see an opportunity to have a portion of our country’s wealth, very few will hesitate to seize it. In a time when money is tight throughout our nation, “sharing the wealth” will probably appeal to many. Obviously, our current financial system is in need of repairs. I am not, by any means, saying that Obama and the Democrats have all of the tools to fix it, but I do think that a majority of Americans are more than willing to try something, anything, that might make our situation a little bit easier.
In response to Erik: Your predictions sound a whole lot like the media’s polls. I don’t think that Senator Obama is going to run away with this election like so many people think. His poll numbers have dropped in the past week and I think that he is a candidate that people are finally getting to know. When I say they are getting to know him, I simply mean that they know he is all cheap talk and has no real plans to anything but turn our nation away from its roots and turn us into a third world, socialistic country. As to being able to push through a lot of legislation, he has to get past the Congress first. Even if he is elected, which I still don’t think he will be, it doesn’t mean that he can get all his phantom ideas, because there are none really, through the Congress and passed. I sure hope if Senator Obama is elected president, he will NOT get a second term. When you say he will make radical changes, I totally agree with you. I just don’t think these radical changes will be of the good sort but will add to the negative connotation of the word. Foreign oil does need to be dealt with though. Being the lead country in technological advances should probably spill into new sources of energy more than it does presently. Oil is like tobacco, bad for people or the country but is a big enough money maker that no one is willing to get rid of it. Speaking of getting rid of things, I will make a quick comment on Erik’s connection and leave it at this: Just because a person doesn’t vote for Senator Obama does not mean this person is a racist. I am not a racist but I would never in a MILLION years vote for Senator Obama. (I like his title the way it is and think he should keep it.)
Connection: We have talked about the Bradley effect a lot in class. I think it will affect some people’s vote in this election but will not be huge factor. I think what will be a larger turn away from the trends of the polls right now is the fact that Americans are finally figuring out that Senator Obama is simply a smooth talker and if he were to be elected would be controlled by many different groups or people, one of which would most likely be the Chicago Daley machine.
In response to Rachel Damiano:
First of all, Barack Obama is NOT a socialist. Everyone from John McCain to the Socialist Party has said that. His policies are NOT socialist. They are similar to every Democratic economic policy since the beginning of the modern Democratic Party. The only thing that has changed is now the Republicans have decided to call them socialist (which I don’t think has as much bite the Republicans had hoped for, probably because the Cold War ended). Giving the biggest tax cuts to the middle-class is not a socialist plan. And which polls are you looking at? Because most other polls show Obama maintain, if not increasing, his leads. They also show him gaining in several former solid Republican states, like Montana, North Dakota, and even Arizona. John McCain will have to pull an even bigger upset that Harry Truman to win. If you take a look at http://www.fivethirtyeight.com, it shows Obama’s percentage of winning to be 96.2%. And this is a very scientific, unbiased site. John McCain will have to take several Democratic states in order to win. He can win Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, but if Obama wins Nevada, Missouri, Colorado, Iowa, Virginia and New Mexico, as will as all the other Kerry states (minus Pennsylvania of course) and he wins. In this situation, he could lose Missouri and still win 270-268 (test it on http://www.270towin.com and you’ll see I’m right). And polls show he is up in all of those states, including Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. 270towin.com already has given Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, and Virginia to Obama. In fact, according to that site, which is another accurate scientific poll site, Obama has enough to win already. If this upset happens, it will only be because of either the Bradley effect or people’s like of divided government. However, I have a gut feeling that we won’t be seeing President John McCain.
In response to Jonathan
I agree greatly with your statement that whoever the president is, McCain or Obama, that they have the chance to be the next Hoover or Roosevelt. Especially in the case of Obama because his policies are so much more “controversial” than those of McCain. I’m not trying to shoot down his policies, but fact is fact, his policies aren’t nearly as edgy as those of Obama. Many people are uncomfortable with his new ideas for government. (aka “socialist” ideals) The whole concept of spreading the wealth makes people uncomfortable in general. They don’t want to give up the money they earned, to others and the government. However, maybe this is what the people want as Hillary stated. Much like the Great Depression, we are looking for a President to fix our nation and bring us back up, and from the article’s standpoint, Obama seems to be the candidate that has the larger probability of being the one to do it. He’s got all the benefits, especially timing. This election isn’t just about getting rid of Bush, it’s about getting rid of the whole Republican party from office in some people’s minds. So, if we’re truly heading towards a liberal government for the next four years, let us hope that Obama can meet the expectations.
In response to Kyle Hermens:
It is true that people will always have their own personal beliefs, and it is also true that they are not likely to change those beliefs. However, people’s personal beliefs will not keep left-leaning actions of policy from being enacted. As a whole, this country definitely agrees that they would like to see their economy improve, and as a majority with many republicans support too, the environmental issues and alternative energy will have to be solved. These are all more liberal stances and are in high demand by most everyone in the country. Therefore, our country will have to go left on many pending issues weather someones personal beliefs are present or not.
I guess I do have to agree with you that Obama basically has it made for the presidency. The fact that he can, and has, labeled Senator McCain as similar to President Bush has created a gateway to the presidency. Even though McCain denounces President Bush, they still both have R’s next to their names. If you caught the Saturday Night Live two Thursdays ago, they did a skit on Bush giving McCain his endorsement and McCain trying to reject and avoid it. But yeah, I do think that Obama has it made but I think that if Obama wins the Presidency and then the Democrats dominate Congress then yes, Obama will be able to get things done. Clinton went against Congress a lot and never agreed with them, which is why nothing got done, but I think that Obama will have Congress on his side and history will start being created because there will be a very little chance of gridlock. One problem that I could see happening is that they may get out of control. Yes, I think that there should be balance in the federal government, but I also think that it should lean to one side or the other so things actually get done.
In Response to Erik Layton
You can’t claim the reason the economy is bad is because our dollar is going to foreign oil. The economy is very complex and to think that one issue is the reason it is poor is ridiculous. Furthermore the largest reason the economy is bad is the credit crisis. People are spending money they do not having and going into debt as a result. Then surprisingly enough they can’t afford the interest payments, they file for bankruptcy and now the person who financed them is out X amount of dollars. The markets are also doing very poorly. Something such as not spending money on foreign oil is for starters, not even possible (where would we get all that oil? We certainly don’t have access to it in the United States at this moment). Secondly it would not improve our economy that much, the economy will improve on its own, and there is little the government can do; besides start a world war of course. So all in all there is not much Obama can do for the economy, or oil realistic. You say you don’t want money to go to the Middle East, but what else can we do?
In response to Brennan:
Obama will do what he sees fit to do. Unless, of course, Congress decides to interfere. Remember, Congress is supposed to reflect what the people want, at least the House is, because it’s a representative democracy. The will of the people will hopefully be made known should he do something that is no good.
But then again, his statement to make possibly unpopular decisions is rather refreshing in a way. I know McCain has been chanting the same thing, but somehow it just means so much. It’s nice to think that some politicians do what they do because they care and not because they want to get elected.
All we can do is wait for the election results. And then wait four years for the choices of the president to make themselves more apparent.
Either way, the results will be the same.
In Response to Cody Thompson:
I agree with Cody. At this moment Barack Obama has everything going for him. He has the right policies at the right time when everyone is ready for a change. He has successfully pinned John McCain as a “Die-Hard, Bush” Republican. Not to mention the fact that everyone in the media has fallen in love with him. Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, and Chris Mathews, along with the staff of CNN and MSNBC have all expressed their admiration for Barack. And I can’t help but wonder if some of the news anchors at Fox News have begun to sway to the left a little. But Cody is completely right when he says that it is easier for Barack to win the Presidency because the House and the Senate are both going to go strikingly Democratic. I do agree that we could have a period of partisan gridlock with both a Democratic Executive and Legislative branch. But I think that this period of gridlock, if it comes like it did in the Clinton Presidency, will come later on in Obama’s Presidency. I think he will be able to follow through with a lot of the policy that he wants to at the beginning of his term but after a while it might become more difficult because the Democrats might start to argue with each other.
In response to Meagan Barnes:
Socialism – An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise…” (The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy)
Ok, so now tell me that Obamas plans are not socialistic. When sharing the wealth the government takes funds and distributes them which is one of Obama’s plans
Another thing. Socialism is not Marxism and Marxism is not communism. Besides we have not digressed so far as to accept full fledged communism, the next step is socialism which opens the door for communism. It’s true that some people love the idea though it has been proven to be ineffective (Russia) but currently it is taboo, along with socialism. Though the definition clearly follows Obama’s plans that is why the left is playing it down.
I am okay with sharing but I am NOT okay with the government MAKING ME SHARE. It will just make everyone sort of poor instead of all poor and rich.
You said “I do think that a majority of Americans are more than willing to try something, anything, that might make our situation a little bit easier.” True, but people need to look before they leap. We have welfare and other programs already in place they need to be refined, but completely changing a whole system because of hard times is not a wise decision.
In response to Rachel Kerr:
I thought you picked out some very relevant quotes from this article and I would love to elaborate on them…”Let me shed some light on the situation…:
In the first quote, “The test becomes whether he can use the powers of government to act on behalf of the American people. That is a fundamentally liberal idea.”
In response to Meagan Barnes:
To start out with, the people aren’t necessarily upset with the Republicans; they are upset with George Bush. He may represent the party but that does not make him “the Republican party.” And as all of us know the party in power gets the blame, which really just means the President of the United States. If people are upset now because of Bush’s actions, what is going to happen if Obama wins and the economy goes down the drain and Obama can’t fix it? Just because people are thinking about voting for a liberal right now (or do) doesn’t necessarily mean it is going to stay that way for long.
Obama may also have raised a hefty amount during his campaign, but what does that really tell you. He may have strong supporters or just the same supporters over and over. This could mean illegal money or just that McCain can’t really accept anything, so does that mean he has no support? If this election was going to be a sweep, which it very well could be, than I think Obama’s numbers would be even higher with the amount of money he has raised and the so called change he would bring.
In response to Tommy, I agree. “Had their not been an economic decline, especially under a Republican President…Obama would not have had as much of a fighting chance.” If the economy had remained at a some what stable level, then I think that McCain would be the one in the lead right now. Primarily because of the wars in the Middle East and that “the country also may not have been so quick to accept a black candidate”. McCain though, probably would not have the same lead that Obama has over McCain right now. Since the economy is in a crisis though, Obama has the edge on McCain and is likely going to win. Obama has played this campaign very well; he has kept close to the center on a lot of the issues and has been able to gather a staggering amount of money to put towards his campaign. “Should Obama win, he will press hard for his ambitious agenda, even, aides say, at the risk of being a one-term president. Then it would all be about execution.” The next four years will be interesting because, even if McCain is the one who somehow wins the election, the government is going to lean more to the left.
In response to Rachel Kerr:
I thought you picked out some very relevant quotes from this article and I would love to elaborate on them…”Let me shed some light on the situation…”
According to the first quote, “The test becomes whether he can use the powers of government to act on behalf of the American people. That is a fundamentally liberal idea.” Most people will link the term liberal with the idea of big government and lots of government spending. Except, as this quote indicated, don’t all Americans want the government to help them out somehow, and isn’t this fundamentally liberal? So, newsflash here, but we’re all a little bit liberal whether you like it or not…
The second quote stated, ““Millions of them [average Joes] are preparing to do something that they never thought they’d do in a million years—vote for a black guy with the middle name Hussein for president of the United States.” Now I thought this quote was kind of stupid…are we really gonna vote or not vote just because his skin color is different and he has a wacky middle name? Sadly, that might be the case for many out there, who even though they don’t admit it are still privately racist and scared of anything outside of their normal comfort zone. Sad reality, huh?
Finally, the last and my favorite quote, “History does not repeat itself, but it can have a familiar ring.” Now to all of those people stuck in their little reality show who think why bother with the past when you can have the plasma tv screen now…I say get your head out of a soap opera and learn from history! If you haven’t noticed, although events are never a carbon copy of each other, history has a way of repeating itself in many different situations and forms. And if we could pay attention to the events of the past and learn from our fore fathers’ mistakes, I believe that we could avoid many a confrontation!
Connection: The whole process of party eras, critical elections, party realignments and dealignments all show us that history is a never-ending process, a fluctuating endeavour. However, at the bottom line we are all still Americans looking to government to help us out in some shape or form, no matter what party we say we are affiliated with.
Sam Fitterer:
I completly agree with your responce to Eric Layton, and almost had a heart attack.
This article is interesting… Once again, I have the advantage of hindsight so bear with me. What I found interesting was the statement about the old liberalism and new liberalism. I was telling people that yes, I wanted Obama to win, but I hoped that he wouldn’t stick to his hardcore liberalism. I hope he leans closer to being independent on the whole spectrum because there are some liberal standpoints I don’t agree with. I agree with the article saying that we need to move center left. Conservatism is NOT what we need right now to get our economy back on track. Our big corporations won’t fix themselves by running amok. They need to be whipped back in to shape by the democrats and they need to learn to use their money wisely instead of taking a big fancy spa trip in celebration of their new found money. I’ve heard the conservatives say we need a Johnson before we get a Reagan, or whatever the term was, but I think it was a poor excuse for accepting that McCain doesn’t have what it takes to win this election. Apparently, our country believes that Obama is what it needs, and I stand by that belief.