Two Guesses

[Person Man]

I guess so...that doesn't seem too bad, except the Gattica thing.

I'm sure you Gamma types will find a productive place in society.

likewise, Mr. Delta Minus.

Me, definitely an Alpha.

Maybe an Alpha Minus Minus. Listen, I'm not worried about being marginalized, ok.

You spent a whole thread complaining about it. 

It does, as someone with a congenital birth defect, offer some interesting possibilities.  I've realized in the future that some problems like mine might never exist.

I hope for that, too. I just hope they spend trying to fix people who already live instead of trying to replace them who come "fixed". Though, I do hope that any future children (and eventually grandchildren) will be born into a world that has already ensured them health.

[Person Man]

I guess so...that doesn't seem too bad, except the Gattica thing.

I'm sure you Gamma types will find a productive place in society.

likewise, Mr. Delta Minus.

Me, definitely an Alpha.

Maybe an Alpha Minus Minus. Listen, I'm not worried about being marginalized, ok.

You spent a whole thread complaining about it. 

It does, as someone with a congenital birth defect, offer some interesting possibilities.  I've realized in the future that some problems like mine might never exist.

I hope for that, too. I just hope they spend trying to fix people who already live instead of trying to replace them who come "fixed". Though, I do hope that any future children (and eventually grandchildren) will be born into a world that has already ensured them health.

I actually am more than a little worried about that.

Depends on how they do it. I mean, I could see people feeling that they are being forced to conform against their will, then again, it could offer a lot of hard-working people more oppurtunities.

[Person Man]

Wouldn't that simply create a new expierence altogether?

[Person Man]

Given all that has happened, do you stand strong to your earlier statements about the next election being a "deluge"?

[Person Man]

Given all that has happened, do you stand strong to your earlier statements about the next election being a "deluge"?

Next two, yes.  I will say to whomever wins "After you, the deluge."

...and you still say that the main change will revolve around the change in fortunes of the religious right. You say that if Obama wins, the Religious Right may develop a national consensus around them and if McCain wins, they may lose much of their political power....perhaps even giving up their dominionistic/imperial ambitions.

[Person Man]

Though, I do not share your optimism about Palin...maybe if Palin is forced to run in 2012 and loses...

[Person Man]

The only thing that makes me pause before being anywhere near 100% behind the prediction above is the concern that the longer the undecideds stay undecided, the more likely they are to break to the white candidate.  Or at least, that's what has happened historically, and those still undecided seem to fit the pattern of this type of voter more than not.

But whatever, even if McCain gets elected, this is probably where we're headed.

You make an assumption, if McCain is elected, a Republican will be elected in 2012.  I'm not too sure about that.

I never made that assumption.  In fact, I thought my statement implied the opposite.  But the result in terms the trend towards authoritarianism and stronger control will be the same.

No, but we might see a break between social libertarians and security libertarians.

...whatever that means.

[Person Man]

The only thing that makes me pause before being anywhere near 100% behind the prediction above is the concern that the longer the undecideds stay undecided, the more likely they are to break to the white candidate.  Or at least, that's what has happened historically, and those still undecided seem to fit the pattern of this type of voter more than not.

But whatever, even if McCain gets elected, this is probably where we're headed.

You make an assumption, if McCain is elected, a Republican will be elected in 2012.  I'm not too sure about that.

I never made that assumption.  In fact, I thought my statement implied the opposite.  But the result in terms the trend towards authoritarianism and stronger control will be the same.

No, but we might see a break between social libertarians and security libertarians.

...whatever that means.

Simple:   Conduct will be tolerated, but actions will be monitored.

That seems to be a bit broad...but are you trying to say that the theo-cons will lose ground to the neo-cons, at least on law enforcement policy?

[Person Man]

Answer the question.

[Person Man]

Ok. So, in a certain situation, probably if McCain wins and no matter what happesn to him, the Rudy Guiliani (socially moderate anti-terror) wing of the party will gain more influence at the expense of the Mike Huckabee( socially conservative/ security moderate)wing of the party on  law and order issues?

[Person Man]

You could see two situations:

1.  Obama wins and is the next Jimmy Carter, only worse.  Within 5 years of today there is Christian conservative Congress abnd President.

2.  McCain win and the evangelicals in the party are diminished.

The more this election cycle goes on, the more I'm starting to see option #1.  Though not necessarily a "Christian conservative" Congress/President, but a sharp trend towards social authoritarianism and stronger economic controls being dicated by government.  You could kind of see it start after 9/11, frankly.

This post, made the second day of the "crisis" still nails it.

Though, really, there are three options for the Obama presidency...

It depends.  I'm not convinced there will be an Obama presidency, this time.  We can only speculate what would have happened if Ford won in 1976.

My initial prediction was that the GOP wins.  At the time, I didn't predict that it would be McCain versus Obama.

So you think that McCain still will be miracled into the White House and then you will tell him that after him, there will be a deluge....what will happen then? Will there be breasts?

[Person Man]

I'll refine this prediction.  If Obama wins, the realignment begins in 2010. 

Are you talking about the final destruction of liberalism and start of the age of eugenics, preemptive "limited" nuclear war, fuedalization of the economy, theocracy, the mass forced repatriatriation of the remaining liberals and swarthy foreigners and the general birth of the Fourth Reich?

[Person Man]

I'll refine this prediction.  If Obama wins, the realignment begins in 2010. 

Are you talking about the final destruction of liberalism and start of the age of eugenics, preemptive "limited" nuclear war, fuedalization of the economy, theocracy, the mass forced repatriatriation of the remaining liberals and swarthy foreigners and the general birth of the Fourth Reich?

It's a political realignment.  I'm taking about voting patterns, candidate selection, policy changes.

Oh. Sorry. I think I am just talking about the policy changes, then.

[Person Man]

I'll refine this prediction.  If Obama wins, the realignment begins in 2010. 

Are you talking about the final destruction of liberalism and start of the age of eugenics, preemptive "limited" nuclear war, fuedalization of the economy, theocracy, the mass forced repatriatriation of the remaining liberals and swarthy foreigners and the general birth of the Fourth Reich?

It's a political realignment.  I'm taking about voting patterns, candidate selection, policy changes.

Oh. Sorry. I think I am just talking about the policy changes, then.

No, those are unintended consequences.

semantics....

[Person Man]

What if Obama is doing alright? I know the fact that you may be wrong might be a tough pill...but...

[Person Man]

Dude!  This is the second time since FDR that a democrat got this percentage of votes. The last time was LBJ in 1964. The fastest growing groups trended overwhelmingly for Obama. Obama won states that I though 2 years ago that a democrat would not win in 50 years.

[Person Man]

Alright let's see-- 1. He won by 50% and Obama won by 53%. 2. Carter simply was able to cobble up the last of the New Deal coalition for one final swoop and hurrah, Obama cobbled up an entirely new coalition. He won Hispanics by 30 points. He won 20-somethings by 30 points. This is big. The only reason McCain did so well was because he scored so high in the Sothern Highlands and Lower Mississippi.

Reagan only won his first  victory by 9 points. Obama won by 6 points. ...and Richard Nixon won by like 1 or 2 points, yet that was the beginning of the Republican Era of the late 20th century that may have just ended.

[Person Man]

Alright let's see-- 1. He won by 50% and Obama won by 53%. 2. Carter simply was able to cobble up the last of the New Deal coalition for one final swoop and hurrah, Obama cobbled up an entirely new coalition. He won Hispanics by 30 points. He won 20-somethings by 30 points. This is big. The only reason McCain did so well was because he scored so high in the Sothern Highlands and Lower Mississippi.

Reagan only won his first  victory by 9 points. Obama won by 6 points. ...and Richard Nixon won by like 1 or 2 points, yet that was the beginning of the Republican Era of the late 20th century that may have just ended.

I don't see a new coalition here.  Obama was able to pull all of the Kerry states and add a few Bush states.  The credit crisis and subsequent market losses drove the national electorate away from the incumbent party, and the light-Bush states went to Obama.  Carter, on the other hand, was able to win something like twenty Nixon states in '76.

Then again, remember Nixon against Humphery. He won by an even less of a margin....and Obama won 9 states away from Bush/McCain. These are only sematical differences. ...and perhaps nearly a half-dozen more were on the brink of going blue. Montana, The Dakotas, Missouri and Georgia. Also, there is not an excuse for Texas to go 45% for a democrat... and some of the light Bush states are very heavily Obama. New Mexico and Nevada and nearly Colorado went as blue as California did in 2004. If this wasn't a realignment, I would like to see it. 

[Person Man]

Alright let's see-- 1. He won by 50% and Obama won by 53%. 2. Carter simply was able to cobble up the last of the New Deal coalition for one final swoop and hurrah, Obama cobbled up an entirely new coalition. He won Hispanics by 30 points. He won 20-somethings by 30 points. This is big. The only reason McCain did so well was because he scored so high in the Sothern Highlands and Lower Mississippi.

George H. W. Bush won by a wider margin than Obama, but no realignment.

.

It was clearly a continuence of the realignment that started in 1980. 

Arguably, this is the most progressive government in Washington in 44 years. There are only 2 truly center-right democrats in the Senate (Nelson and Casey) and only 20 in the house.

[Person Man]

Alright let's see-- 1. He won by 50% and Obama won by 53%. 2. Carter simply was able to cobble up the last of the New Deal coalition for one final swoop and hurrah, Obama cobbled up an entirely new coalition. He won Hispanics by 30 points. He won 20-somethings by 30 points. This is big. The only reason McCain did so well was because he scored so high in the Sothern Highlands and Lower Mississippi.

George H. W. Bush won by a wider margin than Obama, but no realignment.

.

It was clearly a continuence of the realignment that started in 1980. 

Arguably, this is the most progressive government in Washington in 44 years. There are only 2 truly center-right democrats in the Senate (Nelson and Casey) and only 20 in the house.

I meant that 1988 was a continuence of the 1980 realignment. 

It shouldn't be.  Realignments, in theory are, at the longest 4-6 year affairs.  You can argue that the FDR re-alignment started in 1930, when the House shifted.  Some argue that there is a single "critical election" (1932) or a critical election and a "confirming election" (1936).

In Reagan's case, the critical election was 1980 and the confirming election was 1984.  The House/Senate shift, rather large gains was 1978.  To put this into perspective, even if the GOP would lose all House and Senate seats still outstanding, they would still have higher numbers than they did going into 1978.

Yes, but you would have to go back 30 years to see those type of numbers...and this is the second most dems in the senate per Congress since the Vietnam War. The Democratic Party is stronger today than anyother time after the fall of Saigon. We may be short a couple of dozen in the house, but when you subtract the PUMAs and DINOs, we are in a superior position.

Also, look at this map- This is the map of the 20-somethings- People don't change that much politically- it is possible that this map could be here by 2012, if not 2016 or 2020.

We will probably need a reaffirming election to show that this is not an abberation....like what 1992 was....but 1992 was simply the cobbling of an old coalition that was brought back to together by external events.

[Person Man]

Yes, but you would have to go back 30 years to see those type of numbers...and this is the second most dems in the senate per Congress since the Vietnam War. The Democratic Party is stronger today than anyother time after the fall of Saigon. We may be short a couple of dozen in the house, but when you subtract the PUMAs and DINOs, we are in a superior position.

Also, look at this map- This is the map of the 20-somethings- People don't change that much politically- it is possible that this map could be here by 2012, if not 2016 or 2020.

Actually, that is not correct; the Democratic numbers in the House are lower today than in 1989-93.  It might be lower than 1993-95, after everything is counted. 

They now hold 3 more than that.

[Person Man]

Yes, but you would have to go back 30 years to see those type of numbers...and this is the second most dems in the senate per Congress since the Vietnam War. The Democratic Party is stronger today than anyother time after the fall of Saigon. We may be short a couple of dozen in the house, but when you subtract the PUMAs and DINOs, we are in a superior position.

Also, look at this map- This is the map of the 20-somethings- People don't change that much politically- it is possible that this map could be here by 2012, if not 2016 or 2020.

Actually, that is not correct; the Democratic numbers in the House are lower today than in 1989-93.  It might be lower than 1993-95, after everything is counted. 

They will likely be 259-176, which was the same margin they had from 1988 to 1990. 

Actually, the highest number that Democrats have had after the 1980 election was 260.  The lowest the GOP number was 167 (1991-93).  The numbers are still off the lows.  I could only get numbers on four races still out.  GOP leads in 3.

...and I wasn't even born yet in 1980....and there were at least one independent, IIRC in 1990 elections. Also, this issue is moot because there were like 50 DINOs in the house before 1994, now there are 50. The democrats are now free of the Conservative Coalition.

[Person Man]

Still though, the dems now have a commanding lead without the conservative coalition. This is unprecedented.

[Person Man]

Still though, the dems now have a commanding lead without the conservative coalition. This is unprecedented.

They don't in the Senate and the numbers are still up from 1978 (and I think 1991-3).

Definately not the senate. There really are only like 2 boll weavils left on the D side in the senate and only 3 moths on the R side in the senate.

[Person Man]

Still though, the dems now have a commanding lead without the conservative coalition. This is unprecedented.

They don't in the Senate and the numbers are still up from 1978 (and I think 1991-3).

Definately not the senate. There really are only like 2 boll weavils left on the D side in the senate and only 3 moths on the R side in the senate.

Compared to the 1979-85 period, there were a lot.  The absolute Senate numbers were higher for the D's before that.  House numbers are slightly better than the late 1980's-early 1990's.

In most of that period, there were more conservative dems in the house and the Rs were in control of the senate between 1981 and 1987.

Also, the fact that you have to go back until the time just before my birth should tell you that this time is only comparable to times nearly a quarter century ago and is only truly comparable to the situation nearly 40 years ago.