If Obama Wins, Wither the Republicans?

[Des-Bal]

The right wing has devolved into absurdity deeply enough to be considered (in my opinion) indistinguishable from a parody of itself. If the response after a loss in this election is to shift further it's going to become more difficult to take them seriously and not only is it going to appeal exclusively to people who are already on board it's going to appeal to a smaller portion of those people.

If the party continues to drift further and further right taking on positions that are less and less defensible and less and less sustainable it's going to destroy them.

[Cyberocracy]

Romney, like George W Bush, are what many call RINOs. Sure, GWB talk big about being religious and being tough, but he made government grow like a proper big government Democrat and his religious talk was just a ploy to gain the support of the Religious Right. The two parties have become so much alike there has to be some kind of change.

The real problem is that there are, depending on how you measure these things, somewhere between 4 and over 2000 political parties in the US and most are trying to disguise themselves as two parties. Currently the Plutocrats are trying to run off with the Republican Umbrella while the Socialists are running off with the Democrat Umbrella, and I suspect a lot of traditionally Republican voters are having second thoughts about their Umbrella.

[Wikkiwallana]

Romney, like George W Bush, are what many call RINOs. Sure, GWB talk big about being religious and being tough, but he made government grow like a proper big government Democrat and his religious talk was just a ploy to gain the support of the Religious Right. The two parties have become so much alike there has to be some kind of change.

The real problem is that there are, depending on how you measure these things, somewhere between 4 and over 2000 political parties in the US and most are trying to disguise themselves as two parties. Currently the Plutocrats are trying to run off with the Republican Umbrella while the Socialists are running off with the Democrat Umbrella, and I suspect a lot of traditionally Republican voters are having second thoughts about their Umbrella.

Hee hee, Socialists controlling the Democrats, sure. Tell you what, why don't you catch one of these Leprecha Socialists so the rest of us can see them.

[PapaJacky]

Romney, like George W Bush, are what many call RINOs. Sure, GWB talk big about being religious and being tough, but he made government grow like a proper big government Democrat and his religious talk was just a ploy to gain the support of the Religious Right. The two parties have become so much alike there has to be some kind of change.

The real problem is that there are, depending on how you measure these things, somewhere between 4 and over 2000 political parties in the US and most are trying to disguise themselves as two parties. Currently the Plutocrats are trying to run off with the Republican Umbrella while the Socialists are running off with the Democrat Umbrella, and I suspect a lot of traditionally Republican voters are having second thoughts about their Umbrella.

Big government has been a staple for a while now. Only 3 Presidents since WW2 has spent less on the last budget enacted on the year they left Office, 2 of them were Democrats with the other being Republican (Truman, Eisenhower, Obama). As a party as a whole, since WW2, Federal outlays growth by President as a % of GDP has averaged at a decrease of 7% under Democrats and an increase of 5.5% under Republicans. All referenced in the post linked in my sig.

[Cyberocracy]

Romney, like George W Bush, are what many call RINOs. Sure, GWB talk big about being religious and being tough, but he made government grow like a proper big government Democrat and his religious talk was just a ploy to gain the support of the Religious Right. The two parties have become so much alike there has to be some kind of change.

The real problem is that there are, depending on how you measure these things, somewhere between 4 and over 2000 political parties in the US and most are trying to disguise themselves as two parties. Currently the Plutocrats are trying to run off with the Republican Umbrella while the Socialists are running off with the Democrat Umbrella, and I suspect a lot of traditionally Republican voters are having second thoughts about their Umbrella.

Big government has been a staple for a while now. Only 3 Presidents since WW2 has spent less on the last budget enacted on the year they left Office, 2 of them were Democrats with the other being Republican (Truman, Eisenhower, Obama). As a party as a whole, since WW2, Federal outlays growth by President as a % of GDP has averaged at a decrease of 7% under Democrats and an increase of 5.5% under Republicans. All referenced in the post linked in my sig.

That's actually my point, People are paying a lot more attention to boring things like how the nation is paying it's bills and whose spending the money and they are discovering that people under both umbrellas are spending it. It's leading the public to see them increasingly as the same thing. It didn't start in ww2 though, it's older.

[Revolutopia]

Romney, like George W Bush, are what many call RINOs. Sure, GWB talk big about being religious and being tough, but he made government grow like a proper big government Democrat and his religious talk was just a ploy to gain the support of the Religious Right. The two parties have become so much alike there has to be some kind of change.

Saying the last five Republican Presidents(Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II) all rapidly increased the government so how long does it take until the Republican definition means increasing the size of the government?

[PapaJacky]

Big government has been a staple for a while now. Only 3 Presidents since WW2 has spent less on the last budget enacted on the year they left Office, 2 of them were Democrats with the other being Republican (Truman, Eisenhower, Obama). As a party as a whole, since WW2, Federal outlays growth by President as a % of GDP has averaged at a decrease of 7% under Democrats and an increase of 5.5% under Republicans. All referenced in the post linked in my sig.

That's actually my point, People are paying a lot more attention to boring things like how the nation is paying it's bills and whose spending the money and they are discovering that people under both umbrellas are spending it. It's leading the public to see them increasingly as the same thing. It didn't start in ww2 though, it's older.

...the difference is that they aren't. Reagan/Bush jr. both doubled the DoD budget, implicant signs of revamping Wilsonianism and other staples of American Imperialism.

[Soleichunn]

The right wing has devolved into absurdity deeply enough to be considered (in my opinion) indistinguishable from a parody of itself. If the response after a loss in this election is to shift further it's going to become more difficult to take them seriously and not only is it going to appeal exclusively to people who are already on board it's going to appeal to a smaller portion of those people.

If the party continues to drift further and further right taking on positions that are less and less defensible and less and less sustainable it's going to destroy them.

Depends how well they can radicalise their own base - if they can convince the majority that's it's better to remain with them, they can try and play the political game to disenchant voter - if they make their base more radical, then this would disproportionately impact the democrats and swing voters.

[Likossios]

It must be said that the US electoral system is, effectively, a two-party game. The Republicans aren't going to die out any time soon (they still have a lot of support in the south-eastern regions, particularly), but neoconservativism may well naturally fade back into the fringe of politics, if it proves 'unelectable'.

[Alien Space Bats]

It must be said that the US electoral system is, effectively, a two-party game. The Republicans aren't going to die out any time soon (they still have a lot of support in the south-eastern regions, particularly), but neoconservativism may well naturally fade back into the fringe of politics, if it proves 'unelectable'.

It is, but here's the thing - and it's the foundation of my OP: For political Parties to survive, they must be able to adapt. I believe that the GOP leadership has lost control of its grass roots, and - worse - that core functions essential to the Party (most notably fundraising and policy selection) are no longer even organic to the Party.

My thesis is that this loss of control by the leadership has destroyed the ability of the GOP to adapt: It is locked in a hard right turn, and cannot escape from that hard right turn. It may well be able to win this election, but sooner or later it will lose and then get buried because of its fundamental lack of ideological flexibility. The Republican Party may well be capable of completely collapsing into a right-wing ideological singularity, but the American people are not willing to follow it down that rabbit-hole forever.

When this happens, the Party will die. To be sure, the American political system - by its very nature - encourages the existence of two top-tier political Parties (although it has functioned with only one before [cf. 1828-1856]); to that extent, a second Party will inevitably arise - although given the natural center-seeking behavior of the Democratic Party, that second Party could as easily emerge on the right as on the left once Democrats have moved to colonize the political vacuum left behind by the GOP's self-destruction.

If you doubt this possibility, then what you are saying is either that you believe the American electorate is much farther to the right than either of its two major Parties, and that the current movement to the right by the GOP is just a reconciliation of one Party's platform with the broad opinion of the American people (to be followed by an inevitable Democratic move in the same direction, brought about by that Party's well-demonstrated impulse towards political survival); or you believe that saner heads will step in at some point and recapture the GOP, steering it back towards the center.

If the former scenario is right, then the GOP will not destroy itself by running to the extreme right; it will instantiate a new majority by doing so; in that case, the OP is completely off the mark. But if it's not, and you're expecting GOP moderates to retake control of the Party and save it, I have to ask the obvious question: Who are these moderates and when will they rise up to save their Party?

Because, frankly speaking, I don't see them; and even if I did, I don't think they have the power to challenge the right for control of the GOP.

[Free South Califas]

Republican moderates give the impression of generally having outlived their will and/or power to change the party, and long since moved into the acceptance stage. Alan Simpson springs to mind as being among the most agreeable Republicans (off the top of my head, anyway), but his obsession with facts is detrimental in his Party.

[New Chalcedon]

Republican moderates give the impression of generally having outlived their will and/or power to change the party, and long since moved into the acceptance stage. Alan Simpson springs to mind as being among the most agreeable Republicans (off the top of my head, anyway), but his obsession with facts is detrimental in his Party.

Honestly, a better example may be Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), called in previous years "The Caretaker" of the Senate by TIME Magazine, which noted:

Because of her centrist views and eagerness to get beyond partisan point scoring, Maine Republican Olympia Snowe is in the center of every policy debate in Washington.

Yet here she is in 2012, retiring from the Senate at "only" 65 years of age. Most Senators stay until they lose an election, lose the will to serve, or die in office. Snowe's alive, and there was no way in Hell that she'd have lost elections to stay in office, so she's leaving because she doesn't want the job anymore. And she doesn't want the job anymore because she's sick of the partisanship (which fits her personality and history).

And which Party is responsible for the ever-escalating partisanship in Washington? Republicans. They're driving their own moderates out - either via the Tea Party, or via their actions in office, kowtowing to it.

[Alien Space Bats]

Now I'm absolutely certain Andrew Tanenbaum has a nation here...

On November 7th, the day after the election, Tanenbaum posted this at electoral-vote.com:

Whither the Republican Party?

Whenever a party loses an election big time, there is a lot of wailing and the pulling of hair. Although the popular vote was close, the Republicans lost nearly all the swing states, including New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin, Ohio, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico. They probably lost Florida, and almost lost North Carolina. It is true that some of the races were close, but in politics a win is a win and a loss is a loss. With the loss of Virginia and close call in North Carolina, the party's base has shrunk to the Deep South (except for Florida), and big, empty states in the Great Plains and Mountain West where the buffalo once roamed but the electoral votes never did and still don't.

As we mentioned many times this year, the traditionally blue states--the ones Democrats have won five times in a row--are worth 242 EVs. Obama won every one of them. None were even close. Not even Wisconsin, where Obama had a 7-point margin even with a Wisconsite on the opposing ticket. Romney made a last-ditch effort to win Pennsylvania, but came up short. The blue team won by 5 points. So next time around, we can talk about the 242 EVs that the Democrats have won six times in a row. Rick Santorum or Marco Rubio aren't going to make a dent here, probably not Paul Ryan, either. Chris Christie might.

But something new has been added to the mix. New Mexico is now dark blue, so make that 247. Obama also won Nevada, Iowa, and New Hampshire by margins of 6, 5, and 5 points, respectively. If they get added to the Democratic base, it becomes 263. If the Democrats have a floor of 263 EVs in 2016, the Republicans have to win all of Colorado, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida. All of them. Moving farther to the right, as seems entirely possible, is probably not the ticket to win these big, diverse swing states.

Despite the fact that it is unmentionable, we are going to mention the 800-pound gorilla wandering around the polling place: race. There are certainly white voters in Virginia, North Carolina, and Northern Florida who didn't vote for Obama due to his color but are otherwise not fundamentally opposed to a Democrat. All of the 2016 likely Democratic nominees--Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Andrew Cuomo, and Martin O'Malley--are lilly white. Even senator-elect Elizabeth Warren (who will be under pressure from the left to audition for the role of Howard Dean), is 31/32 white. The racist voters might well vote for a Democrat in 2016, unless the nominee is a woman, which opens a different can of worms.

Demographically, the Republican Party's base is angry, old white men. That is no formula for future victories. Democrats did well with women, Latinos, and young people. Unless the Republicans stop trying to repeal both Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut, they are not going to improve their standing with women. If Obama makes a big effort at passing immigration reform and either gets it or has it go down on a party-line vote in the House, the Republicans can write off Latinos for a generation. As to young people, political identities are set early. Twenty somethings who have now voted for the Democrats twice aren't going to be easy to peal away unless the Republicans can pull an elephant out of the hat.

The Blame Game Starts Today

Republicans will begin the Great Scapegoat Hunt today. It is like pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey except it uses an elephant instead of a donkey and a 6-inch nail instead of a pin, and you have to drive it all the way in. Actually, we did this yesterday though to beat the crowds. Here is the tea party version and here is what Karl Rove is thinking.

And as if that wasn't enough, he followed with this on November 8th:

Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy Has Hit a Demographic Wall

When Lyndon Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, he said that he understood he was turning the South over the Republicans for a generation, but it was the right thing to do, so he signed the Act. Actually, Johnson underestimated the effect. Two generations later, the South, which had been a Democratic bastion for 100 years, is still solidly Republican. But Nixon's fundamental strategy of appealing to racist white men is being undone by demographics. White voters comprised 72% of the electorate this year, down from 74% in 2008 and 77% in 2004. It is expected to be around 70% in 2016 and below that in 2020. About 89% of Mitt Romney's votes came from white voters, but as whites shrink as a percentage of the electorate, Nixon's strategy of making coded appeals to racism is becoming a major problem. Witness the enormous discussion about Obama's birth place. It is just coded racism. John McCain was not born in the United States. He freely admits that. He is a Zonian. But Democrats never made a big deal about it or alleged he was ineligible to be President even though the Constitution is vague about what consitutes a "natural-born" citizen.

Case in point: Prince William County in Virginia. It used to be rural countryside where Republican politicians went to reap white votes. No more. It is now the first majority-minority county in Virginia and the seventh richest county in the country. Democrats now flock here to seek votes. Similar changes have taken place in Colorado and other states. The Republicans are gradually seeing that they must do something about their demographic problem, but change is complicated by the rise of the tea party, whose motto seems to be "just say no." It is hard to change when a large piece of your party is very resistant to accepting the new reality in many ways.

The Democrats are keenly aware of the changes the nation is experiencing. For the first time in history, white men will form a minority of the House Democratic caucus. The women and minorities in the caucus will not let the party leaders forget this, not that it was likely with the President being (half) black, the House minority leader being a woman, and the official head of the Democratic Party, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, also being a woman. Of the four top positions, only Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, is a white man. In contrast, the Republican nominee for President and the top three Republican officials, Reince Priebus, Mitch McConell, and John Boehner, are all older white men.

On November 9th, he posted this:

What Can the Republicans Do To Recover?

Pundits of all stripes are starting to announce how to fix what ails the Republican Party. Here is a small sample of their advice.

• Michael Gerson: Stop dissing blacks, Latinos, women, and young people and address their needs
• Charles Krauthammer: Support amnesty for illegal aliens and suddenly all Latinos will be Republicans
• Roger Cohen: Get the government out of the bedroom with respect to abortion, contraception, and gay marriage
• Erick Erickson: Run a conservative in 2016, improve the GOTV operation, and ignore Latinos for the next 15 years
• Rich Lowry: Tell everyone how much the Republicans like the middle class
• Mona Charen: Stop talking about deporting illegal aliens
• Mario Loyola: Keep the Republican platform, just find a much younger and friendlier candidate to sell it
• Marc Ambinder: Forget the tactics stuff, the party has to change its positions on major issues
• Rex Nutting: Stop talking about social issues, embrace diversity, dump Grover, and accept that Obama won
• Sommer Mathis: Stop focusing on rural voters and have policies that appeal to people in cities

And again on November 10th:

Gender Gap Was the Largest Ever Measured

President Obama beat Mitt Romney by 12 points among women, while Romney beat Obama by 8 points among men. This gap of 20 points is the largest ever recorded. Second biggest was 1984, where Ronald Reagan carried both men and women, but carried men by 18 points more than he carried women.

Conservatives Try To Invent Reasons Why Romney Lost

Many conservatives genuinely believed the stories bouncing around the Internet, talk radio, and Fox News about how Obama was toast and Romney would win big. Pundit Dick Morris, for example, predicted Romney would crush Obama with a total of 325 electoral votes. He got 206. The election results came as a huge shock to many of them and they are searching for explanations. The obvious one: Romney was a poor candidate and people didn't like what the Republican Party has to offer is too painful, so there is a market for other reasons. Sabrina Siddiqui has compiled a list of the most popular ones.

• It's the media's fault: they reported only Romney's gaffes and not Obama's
• It was Hurricane Isaac's fault for wiping out a day of the Republican National Convention
• It was Hurricane Sandy's fault for giving Obama a chance to act presidential
• The fact checkers were biased
• Romney was too nice
• Romney wasn't conservative enough
• Chris Christie swung the election by praising Obama for helping New Jersey
• The Democrats suppressed the vote by attacking Romney's business record
• Americans are ignorant
• Liberals bought the election
• The 47% of the country who are moochers voted for Obama

Some of these things have interesting consequences. The Republicans were hit by two hurricanes, Isaac and Sandy. Does this mean God is a Democrat and was trying to send a message?

All in all, a good set of articles and comments to jump start this discussion

[Samozaryadnyastan]

A-ha, clever, but your analogy does not compare. I'm not defending a faith-based system, and the threats to the American way of living and well-being of Americans are very real. If Obama wins, he's going to spend. Not only is he going to spend, he's going to push for the same European socialist policies, expand Government and disregard America's debt. The outcomes are predictable; famine, mass poverty just to name a few. How do I know this? because many nations have made the same mistakes that the US is making now, and it has always yielded the same results. What Obama is doing is insanity; pure and simple. I've met people who are so convinced that they're right that it's impossible to convince them otherwise even with all of the evidence in the world. Just look at Christians as an example. These people are dangerous in power, and unfortunately there are very few ways to deter them.

Debunked myth. Predicted spending for the Budget for 2013 is 3,803,364 million dollars (3.8 trillion). Allocated spending for the Budget for 2009 was 3,517,677 million dollars (3.5 trillion). Subtraction of the outlays for 2009 from the predicted outlays for 2013 equates to an increase of spending of 285,687 millions (285 billion). Division of this difference from the outlays for 2009 equates to 0.081, or, 8.1%. Thus, the outlays between the predicted budget that will be enacted by Congress for the year 2013 has only grown a total of 8.1% since the budget Bush left Obama with.

Spending for the Budget of 2009, as noted above, was 3.5 trillion. Spending for the Budget of 2001 was 1,862,846 million dollars (1.8 trillion). The difference between the two, using the same as above, is 1,654,831 million dollars (1.6 trillion). Using the same method as above (dividing the difference from the Budget for 2001) equates to a total spending increase of 0.888, or, 88.8%. Thus, the outlays between the last budget of the Bush administration and the budget Clinton left for him has grown by a total of 88.8%.

Spending for the Budget of 2001, as noted above, was 1.8 trillion. Spending for the budget of 1993 was 1,409,386 million dollars (1.4 trillion). Using the same method as above (finding the difference between the last budget enacted by congress under the administration in question and the budget left to the President in question by the previous President), we find that between the budgets for 2001 and 1993, total outlays increased by 453,460 million dollars (453 billion), or a percentage increase of 32.1%.

The spending for 1993, as noted above, was 1.4 trillion dollars. The spending for 1989 was 1,143,744 million dollars (1.1 trillion). Apply the same method, the difference was 265,642 million dollars (265 billion) or a percentage increase of 23.2%.

The spending for 1989, as noted above, was 1.1 trillion dollars. The spending for 1981 was 678,241 million dollars (0.68 trillion). The difference between these two was 465,503 million dollars (465 billion), or a percentage increase of 68.6%.

The spending for 1981, as noted above, was 0.68 trillion dollars. The spending for 1977 was 409,218 millions or (0.41 trillion). The difference between these two was 269,023 million dollars (269 billion), or a percentage increase of 65.7%.

The spending for 1977, as noted above, was 0.41 trillion dollars. The spending for 1974 was 269,359 million dollars (0.27 trillion). The difference between the two was 139,859 million dollars (140 billion), or a percentage increase of 51.9%.

The spending for 1974, as noted above, was 0.27 trillion dollars. The spending for 1969 was 183,640 million dollars (0.18 trillion). The difference between the two was 85,719 million dollars (85 billion), or a percentage increase of 46.7%.

The spending for 1969, as noted above, was 0.18 trillion dollars. The spending for 1964 was 118,528 million dollars (0.12 trillion). The difference between the two was 65,112 million dollars (65 billion), or a percentage increase of 54.9%.

The spending for 1964, as noted above, was 0.12 trillion dollars. The spending for 1961 was 97,723 million dollars (0.09 trillion). The difference between the two was 20,805 million dollars (21 billion), or a percentage increase of 21.2%.

This ends the 50 year comparison between Presidential spending. 5 Presidents from each side were compared. Since I'm bored, I'll compare all the way to Hoover, for a grand total of 14 presidential fiscal histories compared, equally split numerically. I will keep converting budget numbers to trillions to maintain comparability.

The spending for 1961, as noted above, was 0.09 trillion dollars. The spending for 1953 was 76,101 million dollars (0.07 trillion). The difference between the two was 21,622 million dollars (21 billion), or a percentage increase of 28.4%.

The spending for 1953, as stated above, was 0.07 trillion dollars. The spending for 1945 was 92,712 million dollars (0.09 trillion). The difference between the two was 16,611 million dollars (16 billion), or a percentage (decrease) of 17.9%.

The spending for 1945, as stated above, was 0.09 trillion dollars. The spending for 1933 was 4,598 million dollars (0.004 trillion). The difference between the two was 88,114 million dollars (88 billion), or a percentage increase of 1916%.

The spending for 1933, as noted above, was 0.004 trillion dollars. The spending for 1929 was 3,127 million dollars (0.003 trillion). The difference between the two was 1,417 million dollars (1 billion), or a percentage increase of 47%.

In the years between Hoover and Teddy were 5 Presidents, only 1 of which was a Democrat, so I didn't bother doing their spending increases. However, as a note, Woodrow Wilson though a Democrat, was fiscally conservative, and the Federal outlays the year after World War 1 (18,493 million dollars for 1919) was 23.7 times larger than the budget enacted on the start of World War 1 (746 million dollars for 1915). More reason war sucks.

Averaging the overall spending increases, Republican affiliated Presidents increased spending an average of 50.6%. Democrat affiliated Presidents increased spending an average of 297.2%. The median of overall spending increases are different, however. The median overall spending increases for Republican affiliated Presidents was 47%. The median overall spending increases for Democrat affiliated Presidents was 32.1%.

Here's a list of the Presidents in office sorted by the overall budget outlays increase in their term, sorted from highest to lowest.

(Republican)
1. George W. Bush's terms (88.8% increase)
2. Ronald Reagan's terms (68.6% increase)
3. Gerald Ford's terms (51.9% increase)
4. Herbert Hoover's terms (47% increase) - Median
5. Richard Nixon's terms (46.7% increase)
6. Dwight D. Eisenhower's terms (28.4.% increase)
7. George H.W. Bush's terms (23.2% increase)

(Democrat)
1. Franklin D. Roosevelt's terms (1916% increase)
2. Jimmy Carter's terms (65.7% increase)
3. Lyndon B. Johnson's terms (54.9% increase)
4. Bill Clinton's terms (32.1% increase) - Median
5. John F. Kennedy's terms (21.2% increase)
6. Barack Obama's term (8.1% increase)
7. Harry S. Truman's term (-17.9% increase)

Notes:
1. Mistakes could have been made for Presidents that did not serve out their full terms. Such Presidents include FDR, JFK, and Nixon.
2. I did not crunch the numbers for average increases by year. This should be an easy task.
3. All data is adjusted for inflation.
4. All day is derived from here


Yes, I accidentally turned a "big spending" retort into a comparative history of federal spending increases by Presidential terms. Besides, the EU weren't big spenders. AFAIK, their entirety only enacted a 200 billion euro stimulus back in 2008, while Bush's/Barack Obama's combined stimulus plans were worth $939 billion. China's stimulus plan was worth $586 billion. Other countries that passed stimulus plans were Japan, which spent about $400 billion in two stimulus plans and Australia which have passed 2 stimulus plans worth $52 billion Australian dollars total. Why did I mention these stimulus plans? Because the U.S.'s, China's, Japan's, and Australia's stimulus plans all cost over 5% of their respective GDPs. Germany and the EU's were tiny as a percentage of their respective GDPs and in nominal terms, with Germany's plan coming in at a mere 2.1% of their GDP.

Why does this matter? The biggest spenders were the biggest growers. China's GDP grew $4.5 trillion between 2007 and 2012. Japan, $1.6 trillion, the U.S., $1.6 trillion, Australia, $640 billion. Compare that to Germany, the only country in the EU that was in the Top 20 countries in GDP growth between 2007 and 2012, coming in at 17th place with a GDP growth of a mere $150 billion. There's obviously a lot of room for "false equivalency" as many countries didn't have a stimulus plan yet was in that same group. And obviously, China being China will always grow even in a Recession. But the correlation is still there, the biggest spenders recovered GDP faster. This concludes my post and starts my breakfast.

The hilarious increases of this make me think you didn't inflation-adjust anything.

[Alien Space Bats]

From another thread:

This is A Thing that could be happening. Or the GOP disintegrates into party infighting. Whichever comes first.

(2) A seismic shift at the ground level - enough that no permissible level of gerrymandering could possibly secure the GOP majorities of the seats with minorities of the vote.

True - it's possible. It's also the only way out of the situation.

Not necessarily. The GOP didn't invent gerrymandering, after all; it's as old as the Republic (after all, Elbridge Gerry, Governor of Massachusetts and later Vice President of the United States, was one of the authors of the Constitution...). As recently as the 1970's, the House was heavily gerrymandered in favor of the Democrats. Yet Republican managed to recapture it all the same in 1994.

Te point is that it can be done. It will take money and it will take organization and it will take time, and most of all it will take trench warfare at the State Legislature level, but it can be done.

<muses>

Perhaps I should cross-post this to the thread on the future of the GOP; it may well be that under the Seventh Party System, the GOP is reduced to a legislative Party, but one that has an lingering presence in the House of Representatives in spite of its lack of competitiveness at the National level.

[Dyakovo]

Mandating the purchase of health insurance from private businesses isn't socialism...state capitalism, maybe, or corporatism. That's a whole lot worse than socialism.

Bailing out GM was socialist in the sense that the government directly owned an interest in the company, I will agree, as one of the key components of socialism is the government owning the means of production. However, it was a necessary evil because the industry as it existed at the time literally could not survive the collapse of GM; the entire supply chain was so reliant upon GM and the other major manufacturers that the failure of one would collapse the others in short order. It was an unprecedented state of affairs, although I do believe there should have been more effort to restructure the industry to prevent recurrence and the need for additional bailouts.

Obama's student loan program, ironically enough, does a lot to restore market mechanisms in the field...previously, private lenders received a guarantee from the government for their loans (not unlike, say, Fannie and Freddie) which encouraged them to lend out as much as they could and charge as much as they could, with colleges and universities complicit in the scam to jack up tuition and fees because they were getting paid with guaranteed money.

Not sure what TAFT is, probably not familiar with the acronym.

Sorry, I meant TARP.

Also, Obama pushed for a public insurance option, but it never went through.

Unfortunately.

---

Fine, I'll type it. If the democrats, and the liberals wish to go down the path they want to go down if Obama wins then Republicans need to threaten them with secession, and if not secession then war has to be put on table. I predict that the republicans/conservatives will eventually have to do this. If they don't then they'll be no more democracy, because democrats will have so much voting power that the republicans simply won't be able to influence decision making at a federal level.

It's not democracy when you follow the will of the majority of the people?

No, it's only a democracy if his guy wins.
*nods*

---

Oh of course, the standard libertarian response to everything. If you don't win, CONSPIRACY.

Not the fact that you're a fringe minority that almost nobody likes.

Well, there was the blackout of Ron Paul, and in one debate, Ron Paul only got 90 or seconds of speaking time.

It's not the fact that Republicans are fringe and nobody likes them either, huh?

Standard response of a statist. When someone doesn't fit the mainstream, they are conspiracy theorists.

There's nothing libertarian about Ron Paul.

---

Standard response of the fringe: when we don't get coverage, it's a conspiracy by the media.

Think about it. Is someone like Sarah Palin really more newsworthy than Gary Johnson?

Well, Sarah Palin was the Republican VP nominee in '08 in addition to being a crackpot, whereas Gary Johnson is just a crackpot...

So, yes.

---

I wouldn't consider Regan or Bush Sr. to be good examples. They're both pretty shitty in their own rights.

What do you have against Bush Sr.?

"No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.… I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists."

[Laerod]

No, it's only a democracy if his guy wins.
*nods*

What do we do? Send the Marines!

[Dyakovo]

No, it's only a democracy if his guy wins.
*nods*

What do we do? Send the Marines!

But, but... I don't wanna go...

[Farnhamia]

What do we do? Send the Marines!

But, but... I don't wanna go...

There must be something wrong with my hearing, Marine, because I thought you just said that you don't wanna go. YOU DON'T WANNA GO? WHO ASKED YOU IF YOU WANNA DO ANYTHING, MARINE?

[Dyakovo]

But, but... I don't wanna go...

There must be something wrong with my hearing, Marine, because I thought you just said that you don't wanna go. YOU DON'T WANNA GO? WHO ASKED YOU IF YOU WANNA DO ANYTHING, MARINE?