Obviously Democrats have not played too many games in sports where strategy is involved. This discussion is like giving away your gameplan to the opposition. You lose if you give away your gameplan. This is another example of a losing strategy.
Given that the point of this thread (a subject to which i feel qualified to speak as the author thereof) is to review what issues ought to be considered in the coming election, without regard to political affiliation, your remarks are meaningless.
But none of the "ought to" issues will be discussed because they are too contentious. No one wants to discuss them.
Sadly, that may prove true.
Outside the ivy walls, politics is much more about beer hall practicality than idealism. One has to persuade the bulk of the electorate to go to the polls and vote the Party ticket. You can't very successfully do that if your Party is seen as out-of-touch with the voter and his/her primary issues, and very little will ever trump the voter's favorite friend, Bill Fold. If the electorate is reasonably content with how administrative policies have directly influenced them personally, they will tend to vote for the administration and this is especially true when Americans believe that the country and its values are under attack from foreigners.
The opposition Party has to convince voters that their personal well-being would be better if the rascals were thrown out. Calling the voter stupid, ignorant and easily hoodwinked because they've voted for the opposition is a doubtful policy, at best.
I still expect that the Democrats will have an uphill battle in the coming Presidential election. A campaign on Bushwacking the retiring President seems a poor strategy, and yet I expect they will try that approach ... "We were right all along, and the Republicans are the modern equivalent of Attila the Hun" is already, I think a bit thin. A Republican Ticket with McCain, or someone similar, wouldn't be vulnerable to those attacks. I expect that we will remain seriously involved in Southwest Asia, but calls for immediate withdrawing our forces would, I think, hurt the Democrats more than it would help them in the heartland of the country where they really need to gain strength if they are to win.
If oil prices continue to rise the American economy might slow down and that could be the Democrats best issue. On the other hand, if played as another form of attack on the United States by Islamic zealots the oil issue could be a strong Republican card. Far too early to tell now.
I really don't expect that Iran will be a major campaign issue for either side. This administration won't attack Iran, and the issue will continue to simmer. The negatives for failing to halt Iranian nuclear weapons development won't occur before the second year of the new administration, and then they will have to take the heat when Iran goes nuclear and starts throwing its weight around. For some on the right, would be quick to criticize the Democrats for shilly-shallying back in 2006. If an Iranian bomb explodes anywhere, the sitting administration will be under a great deal of pressure to take major retaliatory measures, and the risk of a wider and more destructive war would go up considerably.
Immigration is another issue that I expect to remain unresolved, unresolvable and avoided by both Parties. Oh, they may shout and pray, and talk until the rains fall, but nothing substantive will be done.
On balance, I think that the Republican Party is most likely to rewin the White House. Even if the Democrats win, it would be difficult to radically change current policies. Radical change carries with it radical risk, and in case no one has noticed, politicians are particularly risk adverse.
Setanta wrote:Given that the point of this thread (a subject to which i feel qualified to speak as the author thereof) is to review what issues ought to be considered in the coming election, without regard to political affiliation, your remarks are meaningless.
Given that the notion that threads on A2K remain absolutely aligined to the intentions of their originators is utterly stupid, your assessment of talks's comments are meaningful, but only to the extent that they are demonstartive of your personal stupidity.
Sorry Pomeranian but you don't get to set the framework for A2K dialogue.
As a matter of fact, the original poster of a thread has every right to guide the discussion. It is you that are playing self-appointed moderator. Go smoke a rope.
Lightwizard wrote:As a matter of fact, the original poster of a thread has every right to guide the discussion. It is you that are playing self-appointed moderator. Go smoke a rope.
As a matter of fact...eat me
Not necessary, you're too busy eating yourself.
Ah, good old in the gutter politics. The kind that has always made America work.
Three issues which are deadly dull but key to our future well being that has received very little or no substantive discussion by either party are international economic policy, energy, and water ("gas prices are too high and I'll bring the down does not count").
International economic policy is probably too complex to introduce, and i'd say that neither party would want folks looking too closely at how and why the country hemorrhages jobs to other countries. I think that the Republicans don't want the subject of energy policy examined very closely--witness the Cheney energy policy meetings and successful use of the courts to keep the proceedings secret, even though the courts forced the Clinton health care committee to reveal their information. But i also suspect that Democrats get enough money from the energy industry not to want to go there either.
I'm not sure what you mean by water as an issue, and would be interested in what you have to say about that.
Potable water is becoming and increasingly rare commodity in the world. The US already exports water to the Caribbean. Its distribution relative to world population is not in balance and global warming (irrespective of greenhouse gases) is going to increase that imbalance, If you think the conflict over oil is bad just wait. We can find substitutes for oil but not for water.
Whereas i understand the future, crucial significance of water, i don't see how it can be expected to impinge on the 2008 election. One significant difference between potable water and petroleum is "geo-location." We won't have to fight any wars to control fresh water--more than 70% of the world's fresh water is in the Great Lakes. We are rather in the catbird seat on that one.
A lot of the population movement out of Mexico into the US and North Africa into Europe is driven by water shortages. Mexico city is literally sinking by feet a year because it is pumping out its aquifer faster than it can be replaced. US economic policy is acerbating this problem. For example a recently completed nation wide wet rice irrigation project in Tanzania has literally sucked the major rivers of the country dry. This project was backed by the World Bank and designed and managed by multinational engineering contractors (Bechtel et al). The problem it was addressing, seasonal imbalance in the availability of rice, could have easily been solved by constructing warehouse.The list goes on and on. Water is as crucial as oil world wide but it is under our radar. Relative to many parts of the world we have a lot of it. The lack of issues such as this address the broader tendency of a major segment of the American electorate to ignore incipient problems in part because they think it does not matter. It is on issues such as this that the combination of "end-of timers" evangelical's which make up a crucial segment to the GOP base and and large multinational corporations that finance the party comes home to roost
Those of either party who bank on the inherent selfishness of American public opinion to ignore the problem will likely be proven correct in the short term, though.
I don't want you to misunderstand, though, Acq. I think you are absolutely correct to point out that problem. Petroleum looms as a disaster in waiting. The national debt is an accident looking for a place to happen. Sadly, though, those are issues which won't fire up the electorate, and politicians will only interest themselves in issues with which they can hope to inspire voters, and flog their opponents.
I may have been misinformed but I have heard that if US industry were able to mind the shale deposits( with the prices of oil at these levels); create more off shore wells in the Gulf of Mexico( which, I have heard contains far more oil than Saudi Arabia); build more refineries( a blockage against the production of more oil; ceasing the addition of "additives" which raise the gas prices and make for horrendous local shortages because of the unavailibility of those "Additives" and, build more nuclear power plants(very popular in France), we would be able to maintain our economy with only this Hemisphere's oil.
However, I am a dedicated environmentalist and have marched against the oil companies in various places. I would be willing to cut back my standard of living and rely on my bicycle rather than despoil the natural beauty of our country.
The National Debt is high. However, only those who flunked Economics do not know that the National Debt MUST be looked upon in the context and in comparison with the GDP. If the National Debt is close to Nine Trillion, it must be remembered that the GDP is now past Thirteen Trillion and closing in on Fourteen Trillion.
Those who have studied Economics know that the ratio between the National Debt and the GDP is critical. If lawmakers in the future begin to cut spending radically--military spending--entitlements--pork--and allow those who create jobs to keep enough profits to expand factories and industry, the National Debt will slow( not cease growing) but the GDP will grow faster. This has indeed happened in the latter part of the last century and can happen again.
