Let the race for 2012 begin...

[Tumbling Dice]

Well, I certainly admire your hope, ryanm.

btw, the New Deal got FDR re-elected in 1936.

I'm well aware.  The funny thing is that if Obama had a plan like the new deal in this current political atmosphere, it'd probably hurt his chances for re-election because it would be seen as a drastic turn toward Socialism and a dramatic overreach by the federal gov't.

My how times have changed.

I think western democracies are going to need a new New Deal, because dependence on the market economy won't be enough in the future.

[The Unknown Caller]

In fairness, the New Deal was essentially a mild form of social democracy and the building of a fledgling welfare state!

It was bloody popular, more than the working man had been used to before.

Agreed, Social Democracy has a tendency to be like that. 

[gnmmet]

Yes, the economy is the main factor that drives voters when it is bad.  But when it is good, voters turn to other issues.  Even with a good economy in 2004, if 9/11 and Iraq didn't happen then George W. Bush would have had a much harder time getting re-elected.

The party in power only gets credit for the economy when it is good, but they don't always get rewarded for it.  The party in power almost always gets blamed when the economy is bad, and they almost always get punished for it.

The keyword is "almost."  The economy in 1936 was HORRENDOUS, but FDR won re-election in a landslide because it improved.

Even though the economy is a strong factor at what drives voters to the polls, it does matter WHO is on the ticket for President.  The economy will improve by 2012.  Even if it's not quite good yet, Republicans have NOBODY that can really challenge Obama.  Whomever the GOP nominates, I don't think they'll be a serious threat even if unemployment is still hovering around 8% or 9%.

I agree. Unless Mitch Daniels or John Thune turn out to be impressive campaigners, then we have a race. Otherwise I think this is going to be a 1996 or 2004, the devil you know is better than the one you don't.

But going back to what TD said earlier, there really isn't a credible military guy who could run. Petraeus could have been a real threat, but thanks to Obama he's got his hands full in Afghanistan right now. Brilliant move on Obama's part btw, now if Afghanistan fails it will severely weaken Petraeus in 2016.

Also, one guy no one's mentioned is Bloomberg. He can't run as a Republican, but if he goes as an independent things will get exciting. A three way split could give the radicals more of chance and could easily doom Obama. He takes away New York, Florida, New Jersey, Connecticut and may be California and Pennsylvania from the Democrats. Of course he could fall flat on his face like Giuliani but if I were Obama, Bloomberg would scare the crap out of me.

[Tumbling Dice]

In fairness, the New Deal was essentially a mild form of social democracy and the building of a fledgling welfare state!

It was bloody popular, more than the working man had been used to before.

Agreed, Social Democracy has a tendency to be like that. 

And the welfare state has since become too big, unaffordable and unsustainable in its present form, at least in the UK.  We need to start thinking outside the box and we need leaders who are going to find the solutions to the challenges of the future by not relying on the prescriptions of the past, because they aren't going to work.

This includes employment, social benefits, housing, education, healthcare, pensions, the environment, defence and crime & punishment.

[ryanm]

At least you all in the U.K. agree that gov't needs to play some role.  Even if conservatives are looking to cut government spending, they're trying to do it responsibly.

The Republican party here in the U.S. is so far to the right that many "mainstream" Republicans want to completely abolish gov't departments like education, commerce, interior, agriculture, etc. and think that the health care reform, which gives private insurance companies 30 million new customers in 4 years, is a "government takeover."

Conservatives in the U.K. have common sense.  Republicans in the U.S. are becoming more insane by the day.

To put it in perspective, the U.K. conservative party is a lot like our "left-of-center" Democratic party in the U.S.  The only party in the U.K. that comes close to our Republican Party is the BNP.  No joke.

[The Unknown Caller]

George W. Bush won in 2004 because of two reasons: 9/11 and Iraq.  

Well, Kerry was also not a fantastic candidate. And the Democrats didn't compete in plenty of states where they should have, making them TOTALLY dependent on Ohio. And they had a HUGE financial disadvantage; they hd to swich to public funding a month before Bush did because of the GOP's convention timing. And the GOP scheduled referendums on gay marriage issues in lots of states to increase turnout. And the Republican voter machine on Ohio was phenomenal.

They all contributed too. :p But I agree that you nailed the main ones!

I'm very impressed that a kid from Belfast knows this much about American politics and elections.  Bravo!

Thanks very much!  I'm just a huge political geek, particularly for American and British, so this stuff gets me fired up!

We need to start thinking outside the box and we need leaders who are going to find the solutions to the challenges of the future by not relying on the prescriptions of the past, because they aren't going to work.

This includes employment, social benefits, housing, education, healthcare, pensions, the environment, defence and crime & punishment.

For the first and possibly last time, TD, I completely agree on all points.

To put it in perspective, the U.K. conservative party is a lot like our "left-of-center" Democratic party in the U.S.  The only party in the U.K. that comes close to our Republican Party is the BNP.  No joke.

I think that's true to an extent. I'd say that about 90% of the UK Conservative Party, except its right wing, would fit comfortably into the Democrats. I'd also say that a decent portion of the Democratic Party- it's left wing- could slot into our Labour Party on most issues. But yeah, you guys are way more right wing than us- remember, our right wing party accepts a large welfare state, nationalised healthcare, the existence of man-made global warming and supports abortion rights and the rights of homosexuals.

However, I'd also say that a fairly large portion of the Republican Party in the USA isn't so much right wing as purely nihilistic and blatantly cynical. For instance, conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic want to reduce the deficit- but our conservatives do it - even when I disagree with them- through a combination of spending cuts and tax rises. Over there, however, Republicans point blank refuse to do spending cuts which might hurt them electorally- such as defence cuts- or any tax rises at all. They oppose a healthcare plan which WILL, according to all nonpartisan bodies, reduce the deficit even though they say they want to reduce the deficit. They won't cut programs which might lose them votes even if that will bring down the deficit. But they WILL endorse huge tax cuts for their rich friends even if that EXPLODES the deficit.

There is a sizeable portion of the American Right which cares about nothing except self-enrichment and electoral success, at the expense of all ideology, even if its own. That is not even close to the majority of Republicans in America but is a sizeable faction of Republicans in Washington DC- and is exemplified by Sarah Palin, who is pro small government where it wins her votes, anti small government where it loses her votes, and has no ideology whatsoever beyond "What will get me elected". And that calculated, selfish cynicism is what's dangerous for US politics- not the people who genuinely hold views which are far to the right of the mainstream and are at least ideologically consistent in them. Or, to put it another way- Glenn Beck is a heckuva lot more dangerous for American politics than Bill O'Reilly.

All IMHO, of course.

[ryanm]

I think that's true to an extent. I'd say that about 90% of the UK Conservative Party, except its right wing, would fit comfortably into the Democrats. I'd also say that a decent portion of the Democratic Party- it's left wing- could slot into our Labour Party on most issues. But yeah, you guys are way more right wing than us- remember, our right wing party accepts a large welfare state, nationalised healthcare, the existence of man-made global warming and supports abortion rights and the rights of homosexuals.

However, I'd also say that a fairly large portion of the Republican Party in the USA isn't so much right wing as purely nihilistic and blatantly cynical. For instance, conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic want to reduce the deficit- but our conservatives do it - even when I disagree with them- through a combination of spending cuts and tax rises. Over there, however, Republicans point blank refuse to do spending cuts which might hurt them electorally- such as defence cuts- or any tax rises at all. They oppose a healthcare plan which WILL, according to all nonpartisan bodies, reduce the deficit even though they say they want to reduce the deficit. They won't cut programs which might lose them votes even if that will bring down the deficit. But they WILL endorse huge tax cuts for their rich friends even if that EXPLODES the deficit.

There is a sizeable portion of the American Right which cares about nothing except self-enrichment and electoral success, at the expense of all ideology, even if its own. That is not even close to the majority of Republicans in America but is a sizeable faction of Republicans in Washington DC- and is exemplified by Sarah Palin, who is pro small government where it wins her votes, anti small government where it loses her votes, and has no ideology whatsoever beyond "What will get me elected". And that calculated, selfish cynicism is what's dangerous for US politics- not the people who genuinely hold views which are far to the right of the mainstream and are at least ideologically consistent in them. Or, to put it another way- Glenn Beck is a heckuva lot more dangerous for American politics than Bill O'Reilly.

All IMHO, of course.

I'm actually looking forward to the 112th congress starting on January 3 because I want to see if Republicans will actually be able to govern.  They're excellent at whining and crying foul, but they better govern a hell of a lot better than the last time they were in charge.  We're going to have a very conservative and reactionary House which will refuse a single raise of taxes anywhere, yet a Senate that's still under control of the Democrats.  Something's gotta give to make things run, and I'm not sure what's going to happen yet.

That's another thing about American politics: our upper house has a TON of power.  What can the house of lords do in the UK?  Seriously?  They have almost no power.

I guess I'm thankful for the Senate in times like this cause I would hate for all of Speaker (to-be) Boehner's proposals pass unamended and head straight to the President.  Yet I was furious during this past session cause Speaker Pelosi passed hundreds of progressive bills that never saw the light of day in the Senate.  But, I can't have my cake and eat it too.

[soapit]

That's another thing about American politics: our upper house has a TON of power.  What can the house of lords do in the UK?  Seriously?  They have almost no power.

yeah i'm interested in this. do the lords ever actually veto anything or is it basically a rubber stamp?

[ryanm]

That's another thing about American politics: our upper house has a TON of power.  What can the house of lords do in the UK?  Seriously?  They have almost no power.

yeah i'm interested in this. do the lords ever actually veto anything or is it basically a rubber stamp?

They can delay a bill passed by the house of commons, but they can't do anything more.  Most of the members of the house of lords don't even show up for sessions.  It's more of an honorary thing.

[The Unknown Caller]

Well, they can do more than that. Their actual powers are a bit more than their formal ones- they can effect changes in legislation or inflict important defeats on the government. It's not that common, but it does happen.

[soapit]

Well, they can do more than that. Their actual powers are a bit more than their formal ones- they can effect changes in legislation or inflict important defeats on the government. It's not that common, but it does happen.

like once a year or more like once a decade?

[The Unknown Caller]

I'd say once a year. It has more indirect impact than impact. It'll have less under the new government though; they plan to stack it with Tories and Lib Dems to get a clear majority.

[soapit]

i think thats regular enough to say its a genuine second branch of government though.

[Izzy]

George W. Bush won in 2004 because of two reasons: 9/11 and Iraq.  

Well, Kerry was also not a fantastic candidate. And the Democrats didn't compete in plenty of states where they should have, making them TOTALLY dependent on Ohio. And they had a HUGE financial disadvantage; they hd to swich to public funding a month before Bush did because of the GOP's convention timing. And the GOP scheduled referendums on gay marriage issues in lots of states to increase turnout. And the Republican voter machine on Ohio was phenomenal.

They all contributed too. :p But I agree that you nailed the main ones!

I'm very impressed that a kid from Belfast knows this much about American politics and elections.  Bravo!

Thanks very much!  I'm just a huge political geek, particularly for American and British, so this stuff gets me fired up!

We need to start thinking outside the box and we need leaders who are going to find the solutions to the challenges of the future by not relying on the prescriptions of the past, because they aren't going to work.

This includes employment, social benefits, housing, education, healthcare, pensions, the environment, defence and crime & punishment.

For the first and possibly last time, TD, I completely agree on all points.

To put it in perspective, the U.K. conservative party is a lot like our "left-of-center" Democratic party in the U.S.  The only party in the U.K. that comes close to our Republican Party is the BNP.  No joke.

I think that's true to an extent. I'd say that about 90% of the UK Conservative Party, except its right wing, would fit comfortably into the Democrats. I'd also say that a decent portion of the Democratic Party- it's left wing- could slot into our Labour Party on most issues. But yeah, you guys are way more right wing than us- remember, our right wing party accepts a large welfare state, nationalised healthcare, the existence of man-made global warming and supports abortion rights and the rights of homosexuals.

However, I'd also say that a fairly large portion of the Republican Party in the USA isn't so much right wing as purely nihilistic and blatantly cynical. For instance, conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic want to reduce the deficit- but our conservatives do it - even when I disagree with them- through a combination of spending cuts and tax rises. Over there, however, Republicans point blank refuse to do spending cuts which might hurt them electorally- such as defence cuts- or any tax rises at all. They oppose a healthcare plan which WILL, according to all nonpartisan bodies, reduce the deficit even though they say they want to reduce the deficit. They won't cut programs which might lose them votes even if that will bring down the deficit. But they WILL endorse huge tax cuts for their rich friends even if that EXPLODES the deficit.

There is a sizeable portion of the American Right which cares about nothing except self-enrichment and electoral success, at the expense of all ideology, even if its own. That is not even close to the majority of Republicans in America but is a sizeable faction of Republicans in Washington DC- and is exemplified by Sarah Palin, who is pro small government where it wins her votes, anti small government where it loses her votes, and has no ideology whatsoever beyond "What will get me elected". And that calculated, selfish cynicism is what's dangerous for US politics- not the people who genuinely hold views which are far to the right of the mainstream and are at least ideologically consistent in them. Or, to put it another way- Glenn Beck is a heckuva lot more dangerous for American politics than Bill O'Reilly.
<<<Dude with all due respect, did you look into these things you've already formed your opinion on? Did you happen to see how much pork was needed to swing some votes for obamacare? its both sides my friend, the democrats are just as guitly as some republicans when it comes to taking care of themselves.

Also, Glenn Beck's rally wasn't as bad as mainstream media portrayed it. Sure there was a faction of people who made the drive overly religious, but the main message of the meeting I thought was one that should be considered -- that its time we rely less on the government and more on ourselves to instill a sense of community, values, etc..... nd self responsibility. Which rally had pictures of candidates with Hitler moustaches on them? Beck's or Jon Stewarts?
All IMHO, of course.

[ryanm]

Also, Glenn Beck's rally wasn't as bad as mainstream media portrayed it. Sure there was a faction of people who made the drive overly religious, but the main message of the meeting I thought was one that should be considered -- that its time we rely less on the government and more on ourselves to instill a sense of community, values, etc.

I think Glenn Beck came off as a self-righteous b******, but I am heavily biased and can't stand the mere sight of the man.

I just find it funny how some many liberals and conservatives in America can't get along when they both want the same thing: personal responsibility, sense of community, and values that bring out the best in us.  The difference is that conservatives believe government hinders this while liberals believe it helps.  I'm of the mindset that gov't has the constitutional obligation to help, and (more importantly) that this country has always been at its best when we've had a liberal activist gov't working toward progressive change, but that's just me.