Will America come together after this election?
 

Or are we doomed to be divided 50%/50%? Both candidates are talking about doing good things, but without the other half on board, nothing gets done. If the President asked you to make some sacrifices in your life or change how you do something, would you complain or just do it?

Will the next President be able to convince ~90% of Americans to go along with their ideas? Which ideas do you think sound good to the base during the debates, but don't stand a chance of being implemented? Which ideas do you think the other side will hate and will be actively denounced by the media, activist groups, preachers, congressmen, etc... How should they frame these ideas to get everyone on board (less wasteful spending/earmarks, reduce foreign oil use, better schools,...)?

The way I see it, Obama can't come down too hard on gun control. It may play well to the left, and be good for the inner cities with gun problems. But the NRA and the right won't let anything happen. Universal health care is another one. But, I think this is driven by lies and propaganda by the people who like the current setup and are making lots of money. And it would raise my taxes, but lower my insurance costs. There is a way they could do it right, but I haven't heard it. There would need to be a lot more research into what would work the best and how to setup/convert the current insurance companies into non-profit agencies like the post office, PBS or NPR. There would be some government oversight, but they would still compete and need to meet standards. But most Americans would see it as socialized medicine, they would have to wait weeks to get treated, pay for the unemployed lazy fat guy, and would be limited in what doctor they could see or what treatment they would get.

As for McCain's ideas, off-shore oil drilling in new places will probably happen. I think we would be better off having a larger tax on gas to fund alternative renewable fuels, but I wouldn't be protesting in the streets. As for abortion, if Bush and a republican congress couldn't strike it down, I wonder if McCain would try. I'm sure that he would shift the supreme court further to the right, and that is the biggest thing I don't like about his policy.

So, will you be leaving the country if the guy you want to win doesn't win? Or will you not recognize him and do whatever you want because no one can tell you what to do (economics or guns may force you to change eventually though)?

Not with these 2. Neither is truly inspirational and has the best interest of the nation in their heart and soul. And as Lincoln once said, "you can fool some of the people some of the time, you can fool some of the people all of the time..... but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time" And I believe that the majority of the people see right through these 2 but there is truly no other choice.

We need a Ronald Reagan, a JFK, an FDR, a Clinton, someone charismatic, that can sell their dream and inspire people. Like their politics or not each of them were tremendous leaders that did {Clinton had he not been so tied up I believe would have done far far better}. They sold their visions to the people and made us prosperous.

These 2 are glory hounds that want POWER and will say or do anything to get it. From what I see I seriously doubt either has any belief in their stances. They are not LEADERS.... they are bought and paid for FOLLOWERS grasping at power.

I fear for my country. I would like to have the funds and skills for a job in another country and to be able to leave if I needed to, but unfortunately..... and I believe this will be my new mantra.... you can check in anytime you like but you can never leave.

GOD HELP US.............

I have greater faith that most Americans are not that cynical.

But I also understand that the next president will face enormous challenges that will require solutions and sacrifice that may be difficult for some to swallow.

And I recognize that 10-15% of the populace on both the far right and far left have no interest in bringing the country together if it means compromise and consensus building from their respective rigid positions on most important issues.

We will ne fine. Americans are resilient. I look forward to the next administration and am willing to be patient to see results. Have faith friends,

I think America has to come together whether they like it or not. Speaking as an outsider(Canadian eh) we see a side of Americans that seem conflicted by association. It happens here too but,..the people who are so ready to defend one party or the next and throw accusations at each other is so much more venomous and hardcore than in Canada. But then slam each other if the line isn't toed to there exact liking.

From my personal knowledge (limited) of US politics but also from my career in marketing(marketing specialist) I think Obama right now is the best choice for President because he represents something fresh, new and ready to move on to greener pastures. Americans too feel that. Americans are tired of the world looking down on them. They want to be on top again and proud of it.

Interestingly though, had President Reagan been the commander in chief for the last 8 years, I would have to say that McCain would be a shoe -in. And he wouldn't be defeating Barack. He would be defeating Clinton,...Hillary that is.

No matter who is elected it will probably be business as usual:

The rich will get richer.
Taxes will go up for most.
Government will grow larger.
More people will not be able to afford health care.
The middle class and poor will only do better if it benefits the ruling class.

The next four years (at least) will be pretty rough, what with the state of the economy and the fatigue of war. This will be regardless of who's in power so perhaps such desperate times will help crumble the divide.

The election itself will be terribly polarizing but as the term wears on, identity politics could take a back seat to common frustration.

If Obama or McCain wanted to be different, they would offer a job to the other one that wasn't elected to help implement the ideas that both sides can agree to.

Well put. Human Beings in general use cynicism as a defensive stance. To avoid being "hurt" (I put that in quotation because for lack of a better word or phrase). American's, in general, are in the "very very very successful as human beings" category. I'd have a hard time believing anyone that lucky would be truly cynical; not just some bastardized version of cynicism.

/philosophical rant

From Wikipedia:

In slightly plainer English, the median voter theory posits that in any winner-takes-all election between two politicians, the best political positions for both politicians to take is the median position. This way, the politicians can try and capture the maximum number of voters willing to vote for them and unwilling to vote for the other politician. This is why you often hear about how the Democratic presidential candidate will "run to the right" after the primary concludes, and vice-versa for the Republican candidate.

Our style of elections - plurality elections - are what cause the sort of 50-50 splits the OP is complaining about. There's nothing unusual, or even particularly wrong about that, given the nature of American-style politics.

Also, frankly, I hate the concept that politics is "destroying" the country and that we need to "come together." People have legitimately differing views on all manner of policy issues and simply sitting down together will not change this reality. For example, some people think affirmative action is an effective policy. Others would like to change it to focus on class, not race. Others would like to get rid of it altogether. How are these people supposed to just "get together?" The point of a "free marketplace of ideas," to quote Mills (IIRC), is to have a dialogue, force all ideas to be tested and tried publicly, and eventually make a decision. That's what politics is.

Now, obviously, our political system is not a perfectly efficient policy-ideas debating machine out of which the most battle-tested concepts emerge victorious. It's filled with inefficiencies and failures, but it isn't just us - it's any political system. There will be distortions and failures in the process but in the end it is far better to have dueling policies, ideologies, and concepts than some sort of undefinable fantasy world in which everyone sits around a table and "comes together."

Politics are rough. People disagree about things. There's no need for everyone to "come together."

/rant

America will remain divided. The divide separating liberals and conservatives is too wide. I am conservative on most issues, and I am in the minority on this political board, based on my experiences I don't see any possibility for common ground.
-----Added 29/9/2008 at 03 : 43 : 28-----
I may be in the 10% - 15% you reference. For example I see no compromise in gun ownership. I can agree with waiting periods, background checks, registration, even some restrictions on certain types of firearms, however, my right to own a gun is guaranteed in the Constitution, in my opinion. Perhaps the 10% - 15% on the other-side of the issue or those in the middle need to compromise.

I'm not American, but I am, well, not only 'progressive' (whatever the hell that diversionary term means) but leftist and anarchist (the 'libertarian' tag most apply to themselves in the states is as diversionary as 'progressive' and probably 'conservative' imho)

If you believe in freedom, we have common ground.
If you believe in a minimum of authority, we have common ground.
If you believe in markets, we have common ground.

Mutualism. Individual enterprise. Co-operatives. Markets for REAL goods and labo(u)r. Enabling collective services (education, healthcare, etc).

'Left' and 'Right' who favour economic and personal freedom are artificially divided by spectacles, in my opinion.

This is a trick question right?

The answer is clearly "No it won't".

Sadly.

:(

An electoral college 'doomsday'?...

President Obama and Vise President Palin? President Biden? President Pelosi? It could happen.

You think things are screwed up enough? Here's a mind-blower... what if this virtual 50-50 split among US ideology plays out as a tie in electoral college votes? The House of Representatives choses Obama as president and the Senate choose Palin as VP with Dick Cheny providing the tie breaking vote. Talk about further splitting the nation...

The following are some other interesting "dooms day" scenarios presented in a recent Washington Times article.
Here's the complete article Washington Times - 269 tie: An electoral college 'doomsday'?

otto..the electoral tie is not out of the realm of possibilities, but I think the article is misinterpreting the 12th and 20th amendments to some extent.

Its hard to imagine a scenario where the deadlock would get that far with Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate that still are expected to increase in November.

But If it does, Congress can simply enact legislation that would declare who would temporarily act as president until a "qualified" candidate is selected.

Hey! Someone misrepresenting reality!

Where have i seen that before?

*clicks on bookmark to whichever US-ian, UK-ianor other partisan nation's media*

I'm not interested in coming together anymore. If McCain wins, expect me to be actively trying to get him impeached until the day he leaves office.

Will, honestly, joining that system and trying to work with it is an exercise in futility.

Anyone who gets to a position of power NEEDS to sell themselves out to so many different interests, and be willing to deliver on them, that there's nothing to be done for it.

Look at Clinton, look at Obama, look at Bush, look at McCain; Look at 99% of the others on the national scene (as far as i can see).

Left or Right, they're beholden to so many interest groups in their "broad churches" and large donors that there's little more than continue the current trajectory that's possible.

The problem with power is power. The problem with authority is authority.

Power and authority must be put in so many hands that no particular or group of influences can UNDULY influence authority.

The system needs replacing, not the candidates.

No shit.

Will, how exactly do you propose to do that @_@?

It will depend on how transparent the election fraud will be. If it's anything like 2004, there will be enough evidence to crucify him.

It really depends on how quickly things change with the new president. If Obama jumps right in and gives free healthcare to everyone regardless of economic status (doesn't look like it's going to happen), then that would be interesting. If McCain steps in and gives massive tax cuts to promote economic growth, that would be interesting (doesn't look like it's going to happen). Honestly, I am skeptical that they will be able to keep their word, whomever is voted in. I don't think that they have any idea what little power they will actually have as president. Their hands will be tied unless they're able to muscle congress into passing bills that meet their goals.

If the US becomes an entirely socialist nation with the election of Obama, as many conservatives fear, then the conservatives will probably just dive further into their shells and pump up their strongholds in rural America. If McCain is elected and destroys all hope for socialized healthcare, then the democratic congress will attempt to pass the bills Obama pressed for in the first place.

I really honestly think America will always be divided. If it's not one issue, it'll be another: gun control, abortion, healthcare, social security, environment, education... There are always opposing opinions. That's what American politics is all about. I don't think that there will ever be a president with whom I agree wholeheartedly. That doesn't mean I will pack up and move elsewhere.

and the invisible tax will continue to perpetuate its goal by the FRB.

So...if you don't get your way, you'll basically throw a tantrum?

That's mature. :rolleyes:

So...if McCain does win, it's automatically election fraud. Simply because he wasn't your candidate?

Why? There wasn't enough evidence in 2004 to crucify anyone. So, if this is anything like 2004, there still won't.

Look, I'm not going to argue with you on the point that G.W. Bush should have been impeached. He probably should have. But for reasons other than those that you have presented here. The gist that I'm getting here is that if this election doesn't go the way that you think that it ought to, then you're just going to basically throw yourself on the ground and yell and scream. Not only that, but you're planning ahead for it. That's worse than the spoiled first grader that doesn't get to play four square because the other kids want to play kickball with the only ball.

This is an interesting thread to read over, a month after the main body of the conversation.

Back then, McCain was surging and the race was basically tied.

These days, this:

is vanishingly unlikely. I'd have to say that in the last couple weeks, the economic pain we're under has BROUGHT American together... Behind Obama.

I'm not necessarily aligning myself with what Will proposed in this thread, but if the election were held today and McCain won, it would be almost unthinkable that widespread fraud wouldn't be behind it. The pollsters and statisticians say that in something like 99.5% of trial heats based on current polling, Obama wins. We've got a couple weeks to go and anything can still happen, but if the election were TODAY, it would take vast electoral shenanigans for McCain to win.

A tantrum is a arresting of higher brain functions and an act of pure emotion. As this will obviously be a decision made with a clear mind, characterizing it as a tantrum is simply baiting.
There's already election fraud:
Think Progress GOP operative arrested for voter fraud in California.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/op...in&oref=slogin
But I'm at work so I don't have access to all my links. These are the few I could find in a few minutes.
There was enough evidence, no one pursued it, though.
Was the 2004 Election Stolen? : Rolling Stone
Look, I'm not going to argue with you on the point that G.W. Bush should have been impeached. He probably should have. But for reasons other than those that you have presented here. The gist that I'm getting here is that if this election doesn't go the way that you think that it ought to, then you're just going to basically throw yourself on the ground and yell and scream. Not only that, but you're planning ahead for it. That's worse than the spoiled first grader that doesn't get to play four square because the other kids want to play kickball with the only ball.[/QUOTE]
I'm planning ahead because there is already evidence of tampering with the election. If the ACORN stuff was anywhere near as bad as the stuff connected with the GOP, I'd probably make the same promise about Obama.

And stop baiting. You're more mature than that.

I do not believe this country is going to come together after the election, in fact, I think that not only will the divide get worse, but you will soon see hotspots of violence erupt in to widespread chaos and firefights. If I were you, I'd buy guns and ammo. I think you're going to need them.

I'm planning ahead because there is already evidence of tampering with the election. If the ACORN stuff was anywhere near as bad as the stuff connected with the GOP, I'd probably make the same promise about Obama.

And stop baiting. You're more mature than that.[/QUOTE]

This pisses me off when BOTH FUCKING SIDES are doing it. Not just the one you happen to dislike.

So don't sit there and play holier than thou and only accuse one side because it helps your cause. Call out BOTH sides.

CNN at least does:

Commentary: ACORN's actions threaten integrity of voting - CNN.com

So before you go throwing accusations ..... look at both sides.


As for the OP: I agree with DK pretty much and I would add that we need to be very careful to make sure we do not let them take our guns.

I've said it many times...... this election scares me and the future looks bleak.

I am well aware of the supposed ACORN problems. They're infinitesimal compared to widespread voter fraud, especially voting machine "errors".

paranoids with guns.
i'm not sure i see the up side of that.

you actually see an upside? I don't.

I'll tell you what I see happening.

If Obama wins and a supermajority of dems in congress and senate occur, we'll see triple the militia movement we saw when clinton first came to office, but they won't be very mamby pamby about their activities. The first ATF raid will make Waco look like a paintball tournament. You can call it paranoia all you like, but these people are seriously concerned that what is left of the actual constitution will become meaningless the more radical leftist judicial members are put on the courts.

If McCain wins, the immediate violent actions will come from radical militant innercity blacks who will feel that yet another election was stolen by republicans. Police will be seriously outnumbered and we'll see that Northcomm unit put in to action and it won't be just LEO assistance that they will be doing. They will end up using lethal force.
To further exacerbate the issue will be the far left liberal wings that will end up grouping in huge numbers attempting to protest what they feel is another stolen election and meeting up with already stressed out and hyped up police forces who will lash out with overwhelming force to quell any single sign of possible civil disobedience in their effort to keep things 'calm'.

Every incident will serve only to further other incidents as each side feels oppressed by 'the enemy government', be it left or right. It won't matter to them whats actually truthful, only what they perceive. The numerous divides in this country have continually increased in to what has ultimately become the left/right by forcing those centrists in to making a choice. When the violence gets out of hand, people will have to make a choice.

It's coming, don't doubt it. If you need an idea of what that coming disaster will look like, combine the LA riots, Waco, and the north hollywood shootout. Multiply all that by 10 and you'll have a good idea of where we'll be at somewhere around 6 months after the president elect takes office.

after 8 years of the bush administration, dk, you best believe that any action like that from the extreme right militia movement would be understood as what it really is--a kind of neofascist revolt, something on the order of the good old days of the s.a.. folk within these pretend-soldier outfits would have to be out of their fucking minds to do anything simply because the primary difference between the clinton period and now is that the period of open door to the lunatic right that the republicans allowed during their last opposition period is done, and the language that they fashioned across that period has entirely lost whatever traction it might at one point have had---the phase of conservative coalition building that enabled these militia groups to pretend that they are not neo-fascists in the main is over. so there'll be no ground for consent building. so if there is a movement, i expect it'll look at bit like the "general strike" in france did of 1919--the one that never happened, that resulted in a few dozen people wandering around disconnected parts of france looking for the revolt that never transpired.

if these folk are smart, they'll sit tight and wait for the smoke to clear for a while.
if they aren't smart, and it doesn't sound like they are from your description, it will be the beginning of their wholesale political destruction.
and if an armed confrontation is launched, they'll be a bunch of carnage for absolutely nothing---all that'll be at stake in it really is the inability of these country brownshirts to face reality.

ultra-reactionary paranoids with guns: there is no upside.

and if this action is a response from the extreme left? I guess that would be ok then?

what extreme left?
what are you talking about?

frankly, what's happening to the right is kinda like what happened more gradually to the left across the 1970s--the frame dissolved. it's an interesting process to watch and to think about. it doesn't work the ways you'd expect. generally, it seems like an ideological frame gets eaten away from the inside and does not necessarily find itself being pulverized by events--this is more or less how the pattern went with the implosion of the left--the american conservative coalition was in an ambiguous situation for a while, thanks largely to the actions of the bush administration, which used the language and hollowed it out in the process in a way that's parallel (and nothing more than parallel, and even this at the level of form) to the consequences stalin had (amongst others) on the language of marxism. what's different is the events have accelerated the implosion of the conservative coalition, have pulverized it and that in very short order.

i don't think there's anything you can do about this.
and i think it'd be ridiculous, for all the reasons i outlined above, for any rightwing militia outfit to even think about an action any time soon.

the ultra-right has to rebuild. i don't see that happening quickly. i think in the short-to-medium run,the far right is screwed.
if things go as it looks like they'll go, the republicans are going to figure out that the coalition they built is now in the way, so you'll probably see them moving center. it's less obvious what'll happen to the populist right, simply because the trajectory is contingent on the former. what i *think* will happen is that the populist conservative discourse will probably move initially to shift into oppositional mode, more or less in the style it worked under clinton. there are a number of actions that could happen, however, that might prevent that from getting traction anywhere.
but it's not clear yet.
it will be soon, i think.

what i'd like to see is a wholesale fragmentation of the existing right and a basic redefinition of how the republicans are going to try to define being-conservative.
what i'd like to see is conservative identity politics sink into oblivion.
if you cannot persuade folk to support you based on rational argument, then the option is not wholesale disinformation, but a rethink.
i would hope that the right starts participating in a more conventional mode of political action, making coherent arguments and assembling a coalition that way rather than relying on the paranoid identity bullshit that's been their stock in trade for the past 20 years.

but, again, no matter what the far right is screwed. the problems created within the republican party by the m.o. palin's adopted are already the writing on the wall.

this in no way displeases me.
but that changes nothing about the assessment.

As someone on the left, let me tell you that Obama is somewhat left, but mostly centrist.

wow, heads in the sand. Obama being centrist is like Lieberman being neoconservative.

This is why the divide will get worse. The people on either of the far sides can only see that the other side is so far out there. This is why the violence will materialize. Each side will only fault the other and think to themselves 'if they are going to get extreme, so will we'.

what extreme left? right RB. I guess that they never existed and has only been a right wing conspiracy.

Like I said, get your guns and ammo and be prepared.

One more thing, when it starts (and it will start) don't think it will be easy to just sit back and stay out of the way. You will be forced to make a choice by either far side. If you're not with them, you're against them.

if you think Obama is far left then you don't really know anything about any politician who's not on CNN. There are some REALLY far left candidates out there right now.

Obama is far left. Is he the farthest? not even, but he's in the top 5.

not even close, but continue to think that way.

This is only true if you think America's left doesn't go very far. (Which would seem the case from my perspective.) America goes much further right than it does left. One could call it lop-sided--a very conservative nation, generally.

Or are you suggesting that Obama is more "maverick" than McCain? :)