Some Possible Implications of an Obama Victory

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

if he wins....people will become better aims.

Do you think you are being funny?

[guido911]

I know a certain animal that will be unhappy:

http://www.nation.co.ke/News/regional/-/1070/486150/-/6l1wko/-/

[Hometown]

We vs. Us, Obama was born in 1961.  Baby Boomers were born from 1946 until 1964.  Obama is a Boomer.

There are subgroups within the Boomer years.  Older, Middle and Younger.  And there is a dynamic that plays out between the Boomer Subgroups.

Cecelia, I'm with you girl.  You are right on the money.

Inteller, A threat against the life of a U.S. President is a Federal Offense.

Conan, Remember that spanking you're going to get?  Well it got started last Friday and will continue until 7 p.m. on Tuesday.  That stinging sensation you feel is the strong arm of the Left.

[we vs us]

Clarification, Re; boomer conflict.  

I know that Obama is technically a Baby Boomer, but he's advancing an agenda that is very specifically post-Boomer. He's trying to sidestep or nullify some of the culture war arguments that have mired Boomer politics; this, to me, is why he has such a great appeal to younger voters.

[waterboy]

I agree with WevsUs. He is technically a boomer but pragmatically outside of it. He is not saddled with our baggage. That is why he has such magnetism to youth. Wevsus has my vote for one of the top five smartest, most insightful contributors to the forum.

Cecilia- thanks for writing my views so eloquently and frankly. It is especially gratifying that you do so from a position of comfort. Says much about you.

Obama will not attempt to spend his well earned capital quickly and mercilessly as BushII did. I see a period of time where once again, the best, brightest, and this time...the most pragmatic are moved into positions of influence. His leadership will be quiet and firm in restoring the balance of powers that Bush/Cheney eroded.

Congress will be surprised as they will find him contrary to their more local desires just as Clinton surprised them. I don't believe his first term will be immune to the old gotcha' games that conservative Republicans have excelled at the past two decades. But mostly they will fizzle as they will spend much of the first two years digesting the results, culling the herd and rebuilding.

Implications for OK? Few. I spoke to a man at the park this weekend at the very quiet, very poorly attended Rally for Change. I lamented that OK once again is resolutely defending their failure to comprehend and adjust to the change in times. As usual I blame the rural, white, evangelical fundies and their disproportionate power in the state. He made the remark that it was "Bible thumpers" in OK who really ticked him off. He said if they had really read their Bible there is no way they could justify being conservatives. The Bible, he insisted, provides the reasoning and the path for us all to be Liberals. He then informed me that he had been a minister for many years. We're not all blind in this state.

[bbriscoe]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown


Conan, Remember that spanking you're going to get?  Well it got started last Friday and will continue until 7 p.m. on Tuesday.  That stinging sensation you feel is the strong arm of the Left.

HT - Attitudes like this are exactly why Obama will probably be unsuccessful in his attempt to truly unite the country.  People like you who don't even make an attempt to get along with minority conservatives.  There is supposed to be some give and take in politics (and a short memory of the past).  What of Obama's most leftwing supporter's agendas would they be willing to compromise on to placate the moderates and right wingers in the name of unity?

[Hometown]

bbriscoe,

I have to say that I can't get through a day without saying something hateful about Republicans.  I don't even try to be bipartisan.  And anyone that has followed my posts knows that I stay on message.

Luckily for you, Obama is a little more inclusive than I am.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown



Inteller, A threat against the life of a U.S. President is a Federal Offense.

I never threatened the president you ****ing nut job.

[we vs us]

More rambling:

It depends on the margin of victory, but an Obama victory will change the GOP as well.  There're already huge cracks appearing in the Reagan coalition, and I really think this Primary season was fascinating because you had each of the three major constituencies of the party vying for control:  The fiscal cons (represented by Mitt Romney); the Evangelicals (represented by Huckabee) and the Hawks (represented by Giuliani). I also think there was the emergence of another strong splinter group in Ron Paul, who is essentially the face of the libertarian wing of the GOP.  McCain, sort of a Hawk, chose Palin, sort of an Evangelical.  Both were weak choices, in that they didn't put to rest the widening rifts between the different factions (cf. Will, Parker, Powell, and other defections).  They also couldn't find a way to simultaneously unify the party while offering a compelling change from the Bush years.

In the absence of a real strong policy thrust within the party, Rove's political techniques became the policy.  There's been precious little discussion by McCain/Palin of the actual issues; all of their energy has gone to try to characterize Obama as unfit to lead.  It's all been about personality (code word is "character issues"), with almost no policy argument.  I also think that McCain was just too weak and undisciplined a candidate to control the forces running his campaign.  Hence the almost immediate plunge into gutter politics, whisper attacks, and innuendo.  And flat out lies, of which there have been many.  McCain is not an evil guy, but he's unrecognizable this go around.  

I think that a lot of Obama's popularity doesn't have just to do with what he is, but it has to do with what he isn't.  There's a real exhaustion with Rove style politics, and while that kind of fighting comes naturally to maybe a fifth of the population, there're a lot of people it just disgusts.  I'm not naive enough to believe that this will be the end of it all, but I do think that win-at-all-costs electioneering took a serious blow during this cycle.

So, my thinking is, if there's anything approaching a Democratic wave, lots of moderate GOP districts will by and large flip to moderate Dem districts.  This will leave the most solid -- and probably the most radical -- GOP loyalists in Congress.  If the Dems can't break the magic number in the Senate, we're going to be in for a long session of obstruction and filibuster, since what's left of the GOP won't be much into policy compromises.  They'll view themselves as the last keepers of the ideological flame.  

I'm just not sure how the four swirling interest groups make up with each other.  There's real tension between the Evangelicals (who brought anti-intellectualism in with them) and the fiscal cons and the wargaming think tankers at the Heritage foundation, etc. All the groups overlap somewhat, but the ties that bind them have become strained.  I also don't think that America is ever going to have a third viable party in my lifetime, so there's going to have to be either some realignment within the GOP to accomodate the jostling, or one of the interest groups itself will have to split and reconstitute itself (it's said that that's where the neocons came from originally:  Dems disaffected by their party's perceived weakness on Communism and support for Isreal).  In any event, I really foresee a some time in the wilderness for the Republican party, until at least they can calm the divisions within and let the Obama Democrats finally define themselves with some policy decisions.  At that point they'll have something to be united against.

[TulsaFan-inTexas]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

As I ponder the possibility of an Obama Victory here are some my thoughts.  Hope you will share yours.

If he wins:

The media has had a love affair with Obama (for good reason) but there is bound to be a let down of some sort once we see him in action.  A good leader can get us through that and I believe he would but there will be a let down.

Obama's election will raise expectations among people of color – rightly so, of course.  But there is bound to be a higher level of frustration once minorities realize that even with Obama's victory they will still face formidable challenges.  Some folks have argued that the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s raised expectations and when those expectations were not fully realized it led to civil unrest.

Conversely, minority folks who felt like perpetual outsiders in the U.S. will now feel more fully invested in our system ensuring a smoother transition into what has been called the "browning of the U.S."

Obama will own his party.  He will redefine the Democrats.  Perhaps more so than any Democrat since Roosevelt.  The Left will not look like it looked before.

Fiscal responsibility would have to have a positive impact on our bottom line.

Republicans will also need to redefine their party.  Question is will they break towards the Center or more likely, break even further to the Right (somewhere just short of fascism (we hope)).

Good post Hometown. Whomever wins, they will be MY President and will need our support in these difficult times.

Have a great evening.

[TulsaFan-inTexas]

quote:Originally posted by Hawkins

I think because of his diverse cultural upbringing, he may be the U.S. President who actually works out a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians.

Didn't Carter start this with the Camp David Accords?

Every U.S. President since has tried, but Obama may be able to make progress in that region that no other President has.

We can hope. We can hope.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

More rambling:

It depends on the margin of victory, but an Obama victory will change the GOP as well.  There're already huge cracks appearing in the Reagan coalition, and I really think this Primary season was fascinating because you had each of the three major constituencies of the party vying for control:  The fiscal cons (represented by Mitt Romney); the Evangelicals (represented by Huckabee) and the Hawks (represented by Giuliani). I also think there was the emergence of another strong splinter group in Ron Paul, who is essentially the face of the libertarian wing of the GOP.  McCain, sort of a Hawk, chose Palin, sort of an Evangelical.  Both were weak choices, in that they didn't put to rest the widening rifts between the different factions (cf. Will, Parker, Powell, and other defections).  They also couldn't find a way to simultaneously unify the party while offering a compelling change from the Bush years.

In the absence of a real strong policy thrust within the party, Rove's political techniques became the policy.  There's been precious little discussion by McCain/Palin of the actual issues; all of their energy has gone to try to characterize Obama as unfit to lead.  It's all been about personality (code word is "character issues"), with almost no policy argument.  I also think that McCain was just too weak and undisciplined a candidate to control the forces running his campaign.  Hence the almost immediate plunge into gutter politics, whisper attacks, and innuendo.  And flat out lies, of which there have been many.  McCain is not an evil guy, but he's unrecognizable this go around.  

I think that a lot of Obama's popularity doesn't have just to do with what he is, but it has to do with what he isn't.  There's a real exhaustion with Rove style politics, and while that kind of fighting comes naturally to maybe a fifth of the population, there're a lot of people it just disgusts.  I'm not naive enough to believe that this will be the end of it all, but I do think that win-at-all-costs electioneering took a serious blow during this cycle.

So, my thinking is, if there's anything approaching a Democratic wave, lots of moderate GOP districts will by and large flip to moderate Dem districts.  This will leave the most solid -- and probably the most radical -- GOP loyalists in Congress.  If the Dems can't break the magic number in the Senate, we're going to be in for a long session of obstruction and filibuster, since what's left of the GOP won't be much into policy compromises.  They'll view themselves as the last keepers of the ideological flame.  

I'm just not sure how the four swirling interest groups make up with each other.  There's real tension between the Evangelicals (who brought anti-intellectualism in with them) and the fiscal cons and the wargaming think tankers at the Heritage foundation, etc. All the groups overlap somewhat, but the ties that bind them have become strained.  I also don't think that America is ever going to have a third viable party in my lifetime, so there's going to have to be either some realignment within the GOP to accomodate the jostling, or one of the interest groups itself will have to split and reconstitute itself (it's said that that's where the neocons came from originally:  Dems disaffected by their party's perceived weakness on Communism and support for Isreal).  In any event, I really foresee a some time in the wilderness for the Republican party, until at least they can calm the divisions within and let the Obama Democrats finally define themselves with some policy decisions.  At that point they'll have something to be united against.

There are really five main political movements in the United States today. And it would not be bad to have this election split our two parties into five better defined.

We should have Liberal, Christian Democrats, Labor, Conservative (as in business conservative) and Progressive parties.

I would group our most recent presidents and our candidates this way: Reagan was a Conservative, Bush I and Clinton were Progressives, Bush II is a Christian Democrat and Obama is probably going to be a Liberal. McCain was a progressive but has pandered to the Christian Democrats so much who knows where he stands. Palin is a Christian Democrat and Biden would be Labor. Hillary is a Progressive, as is Guiliani, Romney is a Conservative and Huckabee is a Christian Democrat.

The old definitions of Democrat and Republican don't fit well any longer. And both parties use their knee jerk bases (Republican use Social Conservatives while Democrats use Labor and Minorities) and candidates often are hamstrung by having to pander to those bases.

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by swake


I would group our most recent presidents and our candidates this way: Reagan was a Conservative, Bush I and Clinton were Progressives, Bush II is a Christian Democrat and Obama is probably going to be a Liberal. McCain was a progressive but has pandered to the Christian Democrats so much who knows where he stands. Palin is a Christian Democrat and Biden would be Labor. Hillary is a Progressive, as is Guiliani, Romney is a Conservative and Huckabee is a Christian Democrat.

If you're grouping Palin and the Huckster, you're not seeing things straight. The only thing they share is their religion.

You may want to rethink your 'parties.'

[we vs us]

So the Politico wrote it out much better than I did, though I scooped them by a couple of days. [8D]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15300.html

PS. Waterboy, thanks for the compliment!

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by nathanm

quote:Originally posted by swake


I would group our most recent presidents and our candidates this way: Reagan was a Conservative, Bush I and Clinton were Progressives, Bush II is a Christian Democrat and Obama is probably going to be a Liberal. McCain was a progressive but has pandered to the Christian Democrats so much who knows where he stands. Palin is a Christian Democrat and Biden would be Labor. Hillary is a Progressive, as is Guiliani, Romney is a Conservative and Huckabee is a Christian Democrat.

If you're grouping Palin and the Huckster, you're not seeing things straight. The only thing they share is their religion.

You may want to rethink your 'parties.'

Elaborate on that. I think Swake's analysis, based somewhat on the same ramblings that WeVsUs made, are pretty accurate.

Wevy made a strong insight that the remaining Congressional republicans are the true believers and will be impossible to sway without heapings of pork or allegations of impropriety. Think Inhofe. Might be good for OK.

With this in mind, watch carefully to see who the high profiles in their party blame for this loss. Buchanan is pointing at McCain. The intellectuals and the Heritage folks are blaming Palin. Babe Buchanan and many others insist the country remains center right and blame BushII. Whoever wins that battle of words decides the off year success of their party. If they decide McCain and Bush were to blame, they will lose even more seats. The country is indeed moving away from the center right and a move in the Palin direction will be disastrous.