This is a strange election in another way--it's not really close, but people are watching it as if it is. In 1996, my office had to use a point spread, and post a hefty premium, to get people interested in betting on the Clinton-Dole matchup. We've all known for a while that Obama was going to win, wistful dreams notwithstanding. But everyone's watching as if this were the seventh game of a tied world series.
Me, I was hoping that Obama would win, but without much boost in Senate support or a large vote mandate; I like me some hamstrung politicians. Wan hope, now dashed. I'll just have to take solace in Being There While History Is Made.
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Pure paranoia rules among Democrats. We aren't going to believe it till about May. If you get my drift?
I don't get your drift.
Is this some reference that only Americans will understand?
It's being watched closely because - although Obama's clearly got a lead - it's not a blowout as Clinton v Dole was clearly destined to be. McCain isn't (wasn't?) doomed; likely to fail, yes, but not guaranteed to do so. As I told my wife tonight, if the odds were even money, yes, I'd bet on Obama - but it wouldn't have taken a lot of spread to make me put the money on McCain.
The Senate is clearly the more important issue. I suspect - though I'm not too sure - that Obama will govern much as Clinton did: pragmatically. It depends on the House and Senate, and a D win tonight for the top spot and the Senate does argue that the House will probably trend back R if the Republicans can find another Newt Gingrich waiting in the wings. Really, I'm only concerned if the Democrats get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. That would worry me, a Republican, tremendously, far more than the loss of the Presidency.
doctorpat - mid spring is when the right wing loonies traditionally come out to play in America. Specifically I expect rapier was referring to May 4, 1968 when Dr. king was assassinated in Memphis.
I like me some hamstrung politicians.
Then your preference was pretty silly.
If you don't understand why people were watching so closely, then, although you were there when history was being made, you didn't understand it.
Me, I was hoping that Obama would win, but without much boost in Senate support or a large vote mandate; I like me some hamstrung politicians.
Same here. At least no filibuster-proof majority, though.
But it's more likely that Obama will be hamstrung by reality than political opposition. He wants to raise taxes on the top 5% to pay for cuts for everybody else -- but the top 5% will not be making nearly as much money as in recent years, so that's not going to work as expected. He wants to launch a system of 'aggressive' carbon credit auctions, but this will effectively be a big tax hike on electricity rates -- is that really feasible in a recession? If such a system is put in place, look instead for a high number of available permits and low prices rather than a smaller number of permits and high prices. In other words, a European-style system of appearing to do something while not actually doing anything.
Obama wants government health-care, but that's going to be expensive -- where's the money going to come from? Or if the health care comes in the form of employer mandates, wouldn't that tend to reduce hiring and make unemployment worse? How can you do that in a downturn?
And so on.
I'm pretty sure Obama's victory will be spun as a huge mandate, even though it isn't really one. Bush in 2004 got 62,040,610 votes v. Obama's 62,450,831. Not a huge difference, yet somehow I don't remember Bush's victory as being considered a mandate. Considering Bush's approval ratings and that there has been 8 years of Republican White House any Democrat should have won and won by a lot more than actually happened.
The 08 deficit was around $450b, a record. This years so far, 36 days the deficit is $428b. Get your mind around that, if you can. Talk about stimulus or fiscal policy this or interest rate policy that is seriously old school. It's a whole new world.
People firmly standing their ground as the ground moves beneath them.
'But everyone's watching as if this were the seventh game of a tied world series'
Megan; ignoramus of the obvious.
"I'm pretty sure Obama's victory will be spun as a huge mandate, even though it isn't really one. Bush in 2004 got 62,040,610 votes v. Obama's 62,450,831. Not a huge difference, yet somehow I don't remember Bush's victory as being considered a mandate."
Posted by David
You should really see a neurologist, because Bush sure as shootin' did, and I didn't see a single Republican disagree.
I'm reminded of the fable of the scorpion and the toad.
62,450,831 votes for Obama must have been a partial result, with not all of the votes reported yet. His total now, according to MSNBC, is 63,093,305, with 97% of precincts reporting.
Bush definitely claimed a mandate in 2004, even though his margin of victory was one of the lowest ever by an incumbent.