Long term effects of the election?

[elwoodblues]

Predictions (please feel free to add your own --- also, they don't actually have to be long-term effects):

Conservative talk radio numbers will decrease --- who is Rush going to complain about. They will see a "feel good" spike for about a year or so and then steadily declining numbers for 3.

Liberal talk radio will do relatively well. Within the next 4 years there will be several prominent liberal Limbaughs with a national audience.

Democrats will reform their platform and have a "contract with America" type platform by 2006.

For the foreseeable future the Presidential and/or Vice Presidential nominee from each party will be from one of the red/southern states.

Republicans will still try to blame Clinton for things that go wrong in the next four years and will still claim that "the Clintons really run the democratic party."

The next Democrat nominee will not come directly from Congress.

Bush/Congress will push the Conservative agenda a tad too far and feel a small loss in 2006 setting up for a larger one in 2008.

McCain/Feingold will be gutted.

[Randy_Refeld]

For the foreseeable future the Presidential and/or Vice Presidential nominee from each party will be from one of the red/southern states

That one is right. I remeber a Clinton ad from 92 that I thought was very effective; it showed Clinton and Gore working the crowd and claimed they were "new Democrats." I know this is nothing new but anyone that wants to be elected president needs to run to the middle.

RR

[texaspimp]

Elwood,

The same thing was said about Rush after the 2000 elections. His ratings have never been higher.

You are glossing over one of the most important signs from last night. A Republican gain in the House and Senate, and in governorships (I think). 54 million people support a conservative agenda. I think at least some of Kerry's 50 million were voting for him strictly because of Iraq.

Therefore, I think it is reasonable to assume the majority of the country leans right.

I believe you are correct regarding the Dems red state recruitment. I also think the Republicans will try a left coast or northeast member of the ticket in '08.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
The same thing was said about Rush after the 2000 elections. His ratings have never been higher.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have enjoyed listening to Rush in the past. In recent years, his show just isn't very entertaining. It has gone down hill considerably. I know it's just a personal taste thing, but in my opinion, his show has gotten just plain bad in the past couple of years. In my opinion (and my opinion is usually better than anyone else's /images/graemlins/grin.gif), his show has "jumped the shark" --- ratings notwithstanding.

Friends had some of it's highest ratings in the last two seasons which were just plain terrible.

[ QUOTE ]
You are glossing over one of the most important signs from last night. A Republican gain in the House and Senate, and in governorships...

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly the opposite. It is because they are doing well that Rush is boring. Rush was interesting when he was a contrarion. For good or bad, he's not any more.


[ QUOTE ]
I think it is reasonable to assume the majority of the country leans right

[/ QUOTE ]

On some issues, clearly yes. Those issues tended to be important to people this time around.

[froggy527]

I think it depends on who gets control of the
party. The left says Kerry was not left enough
moderates say two left.
So Is it going to be the hard left? The more grass
roots type? Or will the Clintons step and take control?
Its still early but I've seen a few of the talking heads
on the left that are a little worried about a major
upheavel in the Democratic Party.
I just talked to some Dem friends of mine and they are
not happy. And not just about the election,but about where
thier party is and where its going.
It will be interesting to see what happens.

[Bill Smith]

[ QUOTE ]
You are glossing over one of the most important signs from last night. A Republican gain in the House and Senate, and in governorships (I think). 54 million people support a conservative agenda. I think at least some of Kerry's 50 million were voting for him strictly because of Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are absolutely correct - there are a lot of closet libertarians out there like me who were forced to pick a side. I voted for Kerry primarily because of the war in Iraq and secondarily because my socially liberal side hates the Patriot Act and the religious attack on civil unions.

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, I think it is reasonable to assume the majority of the country leans right.

[/ QUOTE ]

But here I don't know if I totally disagree. If you mean fiscally conservative, then yes, I agree. If you mean socially conservative, I'm not so convinced. A lot of people who voted for Bush disagree with his social policies (i.e. his stances on gay marriage and abortion) but saw him as a stronger leader.

[tripdad]

predictions:

1.even lower taxes, resulting in higher deficit numbers for a short time until congress is forced to make some big cuts.

2. the beginning of the end of Social Security. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

3. Osama Bin Laden = dead

4. Saddam = executed

5. Iraq = ally

6. big fight over Bush's Supreme Court nominee(s).

7. a few big Democratic names will openly support GWB in several key issues that were major wedge issues in the past.

8. CUBS WIN! CUBS WIN! CUBS WIN!

cheers!

[texaspimp]

[ QUOTE ]
predictions:

1.even lower taxes, resulting in higher deficit numbers for a short time until congress is forced to make some big cuts.

2. the beginning of the end of Social Security. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

3. Osama Bin Laden = dead

4. Saddam = executed

5. Iraq = ally

6. big fight over Bush's Supreme Court nominee(s).

7. a few big Democratic names will openly support GWB in several key issues that were major wedge issues in the past.

8. CUBS WIN! CUBS WIN! CUBS WIN!

cheers!

[/ QUOTE ]

The hippie lettuce kicked in on #8

[Abednego]

Rush will always have a deserving target in liberalism as long as liberals and liberalism exist. It is on the decline as far as influence in the national political arena is concerned but it thrives in academia.

Liberal talk radio is a pipedream ...... but feel free to keep trying. Not going to happen ..... nobody wants to listen to that horse puckey. Least of all liberals (oh there may be a few of them) but I think most liberals prefer their Rock, Rap, NPR & MTV.

The failure of the Democratic Party to realize this is why they lost in this election which has proved a mandate for conservatism.

What we should look for now:
1. Judicial appointees that interpret rather than make law
2. Education reform that gives parents a choice in where their children attend school
3. A resolved, consistent, determined fight against global terrorism as well as the spread of democracy in the Middle East.
4. An end to confiscatory tax rates on the rich and permanent tax cuts for all taxpayers along with continued economic growth which will broaden the tax base. This will in turn increase revenues and bring down the deficit as the Reagan tax cuts did for the 80's and 90's. (I know the liberals don't understand the dynamic nature of tax cuts but watch and see).
5. A beginning of at least some move towards privatization of Social Security ... an entitlement program doomed to failure lacking change in the status quo.
6. We will see the rich get richer but in so doing we will also see the income of both the lower and middle classes increase. We will also see more people get rich. Hope you will be one of these.
7. This does not mean we will eliminate the poor but we will have fewer. Americans are a compassionate and generous people and we will always have programs to help the truly needy. But we should have fewer freeloaders a prime democratic constituency.
8. Uh ..... no gay marriage ..... which is preposterous on its face ...... how can they possible consumate such a so-called marriage. I suppose we will always have people who like to stir the peanut butter so to speak. But we/they really don't need to sanctify it.

Of course I expect to see continued obsrtuctionism by the Democrats - which I hope will lead to further erosion of the liberal influence. The only hope for the Democrats is to enlarge the numbers of their constituents dependent on government largesse. What we are going to see is more and more become self-reliant.

[texaspimp]

Abednego,

You have crystallized my thoughts eloquently!
I hope everything on your list happens sooner rather than later!

Good luck to you sir!!

[riverflush]

The current Democratic Party is not selling anywhere in "fly over" America. They've got a huge identity/credibility problem to deal with in these parts. In order to make any inroads, they've got to move their rhetoric closer to the center (especially on the somewhat vague 'values' issue). This is simply a hard political reality that they must face. It could cause a vivid split between the Michael Moore wing and the 'old school' Dems (conservative labor voters) - and send one faction to a small third party.

Expect the mainstream Dems to push heavily for Presidential candidates that look much more like this:

http://www.alumni.virginia.edu/virginiaonlinemag/images/profiles/bayh.jpg
Indiana Senator Evan Bayh - a "New" Democrat (note: most successful Indiana Democrats are of this variety)

They desperately need someone who will play in the south and "southern" midwest states like KY, TN, IN, OH (south) - farm and ranch country. Kerry may have said the right things, but people from these areas can sniff out a New England/Easterner a mile away. They see political platitudes coming from the East as patronizing and unrealistic.

Expect an internal war between the split ideologies of each side. Hillary is going to have a tough time playing in these areas, unlike Bubba, who could speak to both crowds with ease.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
But here I don't know if I totally disagree. If you mean fiscally conservative, then yes, I agree. If you mean socially conservative, I'm not so convinced. A lot of people who voted for Bush disagree with his social policies (i.e. his stances on gay marriage and abortion) but saw him as a stronger leader.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the stubborness thinking that is causing the democrats to continue to lose the elections. If you really want to know how the country leans, go back and look at how the ballot initiatives preformed.

Stu

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
3. A resolved, consistent, determined fight against global terrorism as well as the spread of democracy in the Middle East.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no democracy in the Middle East, and there probably never will be. Not even in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. Great Britain and France tried unsuccesfully for decades to "impose" democracy in the Middle East.

You don't "spread" or "deliver" democracy to a country. Democracy is born through the toil and passion of its citizens, not through some third party surrogate.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Kerry may have said the right things, but people from these areas can sniff out a New England/Easterner a mile away. They see political platitudes coming from the East as patronizing and unrealistic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree.

The south disagreed with most of Kerry's positions and saw him as too liberal. If someone from Massachusetts stands up for things that southerners deem important, they will vote for him.

http://www.presidentelect.org/images/e1960_ecmap.GIF

[El Barto]

A mistake on the map - Alabama was split between Kennedy/Byrd not Nixon/Byrd.

On Elwood's original post:
Liberals have mainstream media outlets, conservatives have radio - I don't expect much change.

2006 will be bad for the GOP, the 6th year usually is. 2008 could go either way depending on the current situation (the economy could be booming by then - who knows).

Yes, red state governors will continue to dominate Presidential politics as they have for 40 years (CA used to be red).

[goldcowboy]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe you are correct regarding the Dems red state recruitment. I also think the Republicans will try a left coast or northeast member of the ticket in '08.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, and his name is Giuliani.

[GuyOnTilt]

Predictions (please feel free to add your own --- also, they don't actually have to be long-term effects):

I don't know why guys are bothering with your petty predictions. John Titor already told us what was going to happen in the 12 months following the 2004 elecction. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

GoT

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't "spread" or "deliver" democracy to a country. Democracy is born through the toil and passion of its citizens, not through some third party surrogate.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is precisely the kind of fairly baseless assertion we hear all the time (along with some others such as "peace is never brought about down the barrel of a gun"). For instance, we did bring democracy to Japan after the war.

Not that I think democracy will take quick hold or flourish easily in Iraq, if at all. I just don't like these types of (usually baseless) assertions.

[nicky g]

This is slightly tangential but democracy in Japan has not really flourished. It had what was effectively a one-party system for a good 40 years. Of course no comparison with Imperial Japan or Ba'athist Iraq, but it is not anything like as democratic a country as people think.