I'm pretty sure this is actually the most important election in my lifetime.

[Direckshun]

Forum's pretty slow today. Allow me to speed things up with a super-wide view of the current political landscape.

You can thank me later.

I never like the idea of saying "this is the most important election of my lifetime" because it feels to hyperbolic. The only time I actually felt that way was during 2004 in the middle of the Bush presidency, but the Bush presidency gave way to the Obama administration, which is starting to unwind a bunch of the things I considered the Bush administration to have screwed up (the wars, the recession, the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, Medicare's financial unsustainability). So it's pretty clear I overreacted in 2004. If only I had been a ChiefsPlanet poster then so you all could mock me for it.

All the other elections just seemed to be very important, because you can do a lot of things in 4 years when you've got the White House on your side.

The reason I think this election is so important, however, is because I don't think this election is about the next four years. I think the next decade of policy rests on this election's shoulders.

Obama was and is a game changer, politically. He represents the nation's fresh breath of anti-neoconservativism that the nation felt it needed in 2008 after Bush. Obama is unabashedly liberal, but incredibly charismatic and likeable (hardcore conservatives don't feel this way, but I assure you the polling has always suggested that everybody else does). The moment we elected him to was huge, as well, putting him right behind the 8 ball with the wars and the economy, a situation which clearly set him up for an extremely difficult four years.

If he is able to win reelection, it's possible that this country could face a true electoral realignment of Reagan proportions (or maybe even greater) within the next decade, the realignment that Rove so desperately wanted for Bush in 2004 but failed to achieve. I'm talking about a realignment that fundamentally changes the way the vast majority of the population views these two political parties.

I've written about this a lot on this forum, but I predict that no matter who wins the election in 2012, unemployment will drop like a rock in 2014 as the job openings/job applicant mismatches start to vanish and the pool of applicants adapt to all the job openings. Again, this is despite Obama or Romney being President.

But assume it is Obama. Then you're talking about, at the conclusion of 2016, a presidency that would have presided over a gradual but successful recovery from the worst recession in our and our parents' lifetimes, withdrawals from both wars in the Middle East, the killing of OBL, the passing and now implementation of full healthcare reform, and at least three SCOTUS judges... Even without Republican cooperation in Obama's second term, all these things would happen, with the only significant question mark being the unemployment situation, which I do believe will recover like gangbusters in a couple years.

If all these things happen, the contrast of the past two decades will be unbelievably stark in 2016: you can do it the Democratic way, like the charistmatic and successful Obama and Clinton admistrations did, and preside over successful economies and sane foreign policy, or you can do it the Republican way, like... George W. Bush.

Combine that with the demographic changes this country will be going over the next decade (Texas could genuinely become a swing state by 2020, for starters), and I believe we could be facing a realignment.

I think this would be especially likely if Hillary were to run in 2016. Barring a complete shitfit, she couldn't lose, running on the records of Obama and Clinton, who would both extensively campaign for her, giving her a 3-to-1 advantage over whomever the Republicans trot out. Thinking of what she could accomplish in the wakes of what these two Presidents have laid for her in terms of policy foundations, is mind boggling.

The Republican Party, in the face of this, would absolutely have to evolve from their current exclusivity, their current regressive tax policies, and embrace something more inclusive, more moderate, and less reactionary. More conservative, less reactionary regressive. And then you'd finally have the post-Boomer conversation about the true value of liberalism and conservativism that this nation has lost since the Vietnam war embedded the Boomer population in a decades-long culture war. This development would change the entire dynamic, and provide those weird things like "hope" and "change" that we've ridiculed for five years.

On the other hand, what if the Republicans win? Romney/Ryan '12.

Most of Obama's accomplishments would obviously be trashed. Healthcare reform would either be outright repealed, or simply not enforced and de-fanged until it could no longer accomplish much of anything. The Democratic goal of bringing back the Clinton tax rates for the wealthy would be a thing of the past; in fact, Romney and Ryan would move the offensive forward, attempting to bring their tax rates down even lower. The landmark regulations for the financial industry passed under Obama would almost certainly be neutered to the point of irrelevancy, in particular Consumer Protection.

But even more than his policies, the idea of what Obama represented would be defeated. The idea of providing more for the less fortunate, for collectivism and the social safety net, would suffer irreperable harm as Romney and Ryan get to benefit from an employment boom in 2014, something they will understandably take credit for and the public will understandably reward them for, embedding in the public psyche the idea that regressive policies somehow accounted for all of this, and cementing trickle-down economics as vindicated once and for all.

And while Ryan seems very green now, assuming Romney wins reelection, Ryan would be a powerful candidate under this philosophy in 2020 running against whomever the Democrats could put up. By then, barring any huge screwups or scandals by the Romney administration, the conversation between conservativism and liberalism would almost certainly vanish, and instead be between conservativism and libertarian regressivism.

You're talking about two radically different futures for the next decade-plus, one with generational realignment possibilities in my opinion.

All of it sparked from one election.

That's why I think this could be the most important election in our lifetimes.

Thoughts?

[Brainiac]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I just don't see it that way.

Dems will vote for Dems, R's for R's. It'll all come down to the Independents, which typically tend to be more educated and socially "liberal".

When Romney and Ryan are asked their opinion on abortion during the debates, they'll lose some women voters, along with Independents.

I see this race shaping up exactly as the 2008 election.

That's a very real possibility, especially when dumbasses like Todd Akin open their mouths.

I'm socially liberal, but in my mind the economy is by far the more important issue for 2012, and that's what I plan to base my vote on.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

That's a very real possibility, especially when dumbasses like Todd Akin open their mouths.

I'm socially liberal, but in my mind the economy is by far the more important issue for 2012, and that's what I plan to base my vote on.

So you're voting for Johnson eh?

[Brainiac]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

So you're voting for Johnson eh?

Why would I do that when Mitt Romney is on the ballot?

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

Why would I do that when Mitt Romney is on the ballot?

Because all he is offering is Bush policies II. We know how that turned out, 800K job s being lost a month, the economy on the verge of a depression, Wall Street losing half its value etc. etc. why would you want that again?

[Brainiac]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Because all he is offering is Bush policies II. We know how that turned out, 800K job s being lost a month, the economy on the verge of a depression, Wall Street losing half its value etc. etc. why would you want that again?

The Ron Paul supporters say over and over that there is no difference between Romney and Obama. The Obama supporters say over and over that there is no difference between Romney and Bush. Both of those groups do that because (1) THEIR candidates are unqualified and incompetent, and (2) they don't understand that Romney brings a mix of experience in both business and government that makes him extremely qualified to make the right calls after he is elected.

It's important to listen to what a candidate says when he's running for office, because it gives you some degree of insight into what he'll do if he is elected. But it's equally important to consider background and qualifications, because at the end of the day it doesn't matter what a candidate promises, it matters what the elected official delivers. Obama has delivered absolutely nothing except a horrible health care plan and an environment that is extremely hostile to business. It's no surprise that the economy is in the tank, that the unemployment rate dropped from 8.3% to 8.1% ONLY because people are no longer actively seeking employment and are therefore not counted in the official statistic, and that many people in the business community refuse to expand their businesses because of the uncertainty over what Obama is going to do next to harm them.

I'd rather put a competent guy in office who has a proven track record of success in both business and government, and I'll hope like hell that he makes the right calls when he is presented with whatever issues he has to deal with. That beats the hell out of voting for a guy who gets elected by promising everything to everybody and says he'll pay for it by soaking the rich.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Because all he is offering is Bush policies II. We know how that turned out, 800K job s being lost a month, the economy on the verge of a depression, Wall Street losing half its value etc. etc. why would you want that again?

Are you under the mistaken assumption that Bush tax policy led to the recession?

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Are you under the mistaken assumption that Bush tax policy led to the recession?

his tax cuts for the rich didnt help but it also didnt do shit to help the economy. The economy was a BS house of cards built on a real estate bubble. That was Bush's doing. He encouraged and helped build that house of cards.

Bush was not successful in his economic policy because it was all built on that BS house of cards banking/real estate/Wall street bubble. He allowed the relaxed regulations and looked the other way when banks were borrowing $40 for every $1 they actually had in the banking sheets.

There is no way you are going to convince anyone that Bush's economic policies were great, unless you are in a Republican bubble.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

his tax cuts for the rich didnt help but it also didnt do shit to help the economy. The economy was a BS house of cards built on a real estate bubble. That was Bush's doing. He encouraged and helped build that house of cards.

Bush was not successful in his economic policy because it was all built on that BS house of cards banking/real estate/Wall street bubble. He allowed the relaxed regulations and looked the other way when banks were borrowing $40 for every $1 they actually had in the banking sheets.

There is no way you are going to convince anyone that Bush's economic policies were great, unless you are in a Republican bubble.

WOW. That was not a Bush thing.. although he didn't really do much to help.. the VAST MAJORITY of this happened under Clinton. You REALLY have your facts wrong here man. I blame Barney Frank more than anyone, others blame big banks, or Wall Street or whoever... but blaming the housing crisis on Bush is so completely off base it's ludicrous. I guess he shares a small amount of blame for not fixing all the problems introduced under Clinton but that's hardly fair.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

his tax cuts for the rich didnt help but it also didnt do shit to help the economy. The economy was a BS house of cards built on a real estate bubble. That was Bush's doing. He encouraged and helped build that house of cards.

Bush was not successful in his economic policy because it was all built on that BS house of cards banking/real estate/Wall street bubble. He allowed the relaxed regulations and looked the other way when banks were borrowing $40 for every $1 they actually had in the banking sheets.

There is no way you are going to convince anyone that Bush's economic policies were great, unless you are in a Republican bubble.

The housing bubble was a Bush thing? Wow. Just, wow.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

The housing bubble was a Bush thing? Wow. Just, wow.

That's what I said!

Apparently, in Democratic circles, that is the current spin. I understand the idea that "deregulation" is to blame. That's fine to make that argument... but then you need to realize that the most drastic deregulation in that sector came into effect under Clinton. They seem to totally ignore the FACTS and instead just assume if it is deregulation it must have been Bush.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

his tax cuts for the rich didnt help but it also didnt do shit to help the economy. The economy was a BS house of cards built on a real estate bubble. That was Bush's doing. He encouraged and helped build that house of cards.

Bush's tax cuts weren't tax cuts for the rich, they were across the board tax cuts. The cuts that didn't help the economy were the ones you want to keep (i.e. the rate cuts for lower tax brackets). The country rebounded from the Clinton recession and the 9/11 attacks a lot more quickly than many feared (unlike the Obama economy) even if it never achieved the levels of growth that we would have liked to have seen. You simply can't blame what happened at the end of the Bush administration on his tax cuts. It's BS.

his tax cuts for the rich didnt help but it also Bush was not successful in his economic policy because it was all built on that BS house of cards banking/real estate/Wall street bubble. He allowed the relaxed regulations and looked the other way when banks were borrowing $40 for every $1 they actually had in the banking sheets.[/quote]

The banking/housing crisis was built by both parties not just one. As for bubbles, the housing bubble followed the y2k bubble and the dot com bubble and now we're working on pumping up a new bubble. That wasn't a Bush or GOP creation either.

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

There is no way you are going to convince anyone that Bush's economic policies were great, unless you are in a Republican bubble.

I was a critic of many Bush economic policies so why would I be trying to convince you that they were all great. His tax policies were good though, but they didn't build the Obama economy. Depending on whether you understand this stuff or whether you're just being fooled by it, you're either building or buying into a strawman that Romney policy is the same as Bush policy. It's simply not the case.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

WOW. That was not a Bush thing.. although he didn't really do much to help.. the VAST MAJORITY of this happened under Clinton. You REALLY have your facts wrong here man. I blame Barney Frank more than anyone, others blame big banks, or Wall Street or whoever... but blaming the housing crisis on Bush is so completely off base it's ludicrous. I guess he shares a small amount of blame for not fixing all the problems introduced under Clinton but that's hardly fair.

Right. The blame that I think it's fair to level on Bush is the blame that he didn't see this unintended consequence coming and sound a warning alarm so it could be prevented. But there are a lot of others from both parties who didn't see it coming and who were a lot more involved in building it in the first place so it's amazing that people have bought into the idea that Bush tax cuts or even more broad Bush economic policies are to blame for where we are now.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

WOW. That was not a Bush thing.. although he didn't really do much to help.. the VAST MAJORITY of this happened under Clinton. You REALLY have your facts wrong here man.

Revisionist history. The stock market and realestate crash occured in 2008, not 1998.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Bush's tax cuts weren't tax cuts for the rich, they were across the board tax cuts.

thats just BS. Republicans always say we want the same tax cuts for everyone. We have a progressive tax code and loopholes favoring the powerful and rich. The benefits of a acrosss the board tax cut benefit the rich more than anyone else.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by patteeu

The banking/housing crisis was built by both parties not just one.

No, it was not totally Bush's fault. The Dems also had a hand in the collapse through Dodd-Frank.

But if your defense is the issue was caused before Bush. He was blameless and was powerless to stop it...thats BS. Same basic line of defense that Obama has no responsibility for the current economy because all the damge was done under Bush.