Guapo wrote:What trend are you talking about? Danivon, you can't compare mid-term congressional elections to presidential ones. There's a big difference there. I think you lack that understanding because you don't have presidential elections, and your PM is more like our speaker of the house. The real trend is that incumbents win. Period. In fact, the only time an incumbent didn't win since 1984, was Bush Sr. And we all know why that election was different.

There were many reasons. One key reason was that there was a recession in 1989-90 which hit the US budget, and Bush I's solution to try and reduce the deficit included tax rises, which alienated people because he'd explicitly promised not to, as well as the recovery not being all that well felt by people over the next year or so. That motivated Perot to launch a third party campaign, which was fiscally conservative but fairly moderate socially. Meantime, Clinton gained support with the 'New Democrat' with enough moderates. Bush got triangulated, but the economy was a major factor.

Yes, Incumbents tend to win (it's not really changed much since the days of Washington and Adams). But there are reasons why they don't that are quite common. Carter lost in part over the poor economy. The previous time there was President who got only 4 years was Hoover - who lost during the 1930s recession.

(I guess you could counter with LBJ, even though he'd served more than one term before he stood down from the Democratic primaries in 1968, but I think 1968 was a pretty abnormal year).

I was not, by the way, thinking of mid-term elections. Nor was I comparing with the UK.

By the way, the idea that the LP will break through in 2016? with Johnson? let's just call it 'interesting'. If the Republicans are doing well, the LP will be squeezed out as conservatives won't want to risk another loss. If they aren't, well, perhaps the LP will get more of a protest vote, but I think DF's prediction of a max of 5% is pretty good.

That brings me to 1992. In 1992, Ross Perot broke into the party and had a major effect. While the LP is nowhere near 22% (or 10% for that matter), they don't need to be. They only need 5% to get automatic ballot access and about $10 million retroactively. No, $10 million is not anywhere near the money the two major parties spend, but it's a lot more money to put into elections and advertising--not to mention the automatic ballot access they receive.

However, as I said, the LP has never had a candidate like Gary. The LP has never had anyone with his experience, nor with his tenacity. To call the LP a "fringe" party is inaccurate (the designation is as a minor party), but that's fine. However, to call Gary a fringe candidate is silly. He's much more moderate than Ron Paul and other libertarians on foreign policy. He wants to end the wars, but keep many of the bases. He's a two term Governor. He's a successful businessman. He's also more likely to get face time on the main stream media. He's anything but a fringe candidate. My prognostication lies in the assumption that he wins the nomination in 2016. I will personally work toward that end.

Never before has the LP gotten 1 million votes. Never before has a candidate been as experienced. Never before has an LP candidate had 5 years to be a candidate. Just like Ron Paul is getting more attention, so will he.

This doesn't mean he'll win. This means that he has a very good chance to get 5% next election, unless the Republicans move hard towards the Libertarians. That's when the game starts. Again, if the Republicans continue with their disconnect, they won't have Obama to rally against. As it stands, the Democrats don't really have anyone to look toward, either. If Gary somehow manages to get into the 2016 debates, that's a game changer.

Sassenach wrote:If Congressional Republicans allow the government to go over the 'fiscal cliff' then all bets are off.

That's a pretty funny (unfair) way to frame it.

The Republicans kept the House. They have no obligation to roll over for the President. Realistically, I think there will be a tax increase, but it will likely NOT start at $250K.

If Democrats insist on that, THEY will allow the government to go over the fiscal cliff.

Let's see Obama lead from the front for a change.

However, I saw an argument yesterday that it might be in Obama's interest to let the 'fiscal cliff' happen. The Bush Tax cuts expiring would change the ground. And the enforced spending cuts are just the kind of thing that the Republicans have been calling for (across the board of about 10%), but of course they are now aware that it would put a big dent into GDP to do it all at once.

It may well force Congress to do a deal in 2013.

I'm not sure I'm convinced by it, and it's pretty risky for the US economically, but then again a deal that just puts off the need to deal with things for another year or so won't impress the markets much either.

danivon wrote:However, I saw an argument yesterday that it might be in Obama's interest to let the 'fiscal cliff' happen. The Bush Tax cuts expiring would change the ground. And the enforced spending cuts are just the kind of thing that the Republicans have been calling for (across the board of about 10%), but of course they are now aware that it would put a big dent into GDP to do it all at once.

It may well force Congress to do a deal in 2013.

I'm not sure I'm convinced by it, and it's pretty risky for the US economically, but then again a deal that just puts off the need to deal with things for another year or so won't impress the markets much either.

Risky indeed. Some predict a recession. It would be bold to risk the next 4 years right up front.

I'd call that bluff.

Even if 'calling the bluff' meant that you could be the one that gets the blame? It's a risky move for the House Republicans, too.

No way. It's a President who gets blamed for the economy, something Obama knows well.

Interestingly, I saw Howard Dean being interviewed oin election night and he said that he'd prefer to go over the fiscal cliff because he thinks it's the best deal the Democrats are going to get. Easy for him to say though, he's not the President.

Doctor Fate wrote:No way. It's a President who gets blamed for the economy, something Obama knows well.

I hope you are right, but he has shown a blind spot on this sort of issue before. If Obama can get a better negotiating position and blame the impasse on the "radical right wing" all at the same time, he might go for it.

By the way, on mandates, more votes were cast for Democrats than for Republicans in the House elections this year. That is so far in the counting, by only about half a million, and that doesn't account for uncontested seats (but there's no 'mandate' for a victory by default and there were xome on both sides).

Because of relative turn out and the way that districts are laid out, the GOP has managed to get a majority of Representatives from a minority of the vote. This is a 'feature' of first past the post, but is exarcebated by gerrymandering. I know that the US is a republic, and the Presidency and the Senate are not supposed to simply reflect majority national opinion, but the reason to have that was explicitly to balance out a House that was to be elected on the popular vote on short terms.

So, the House Republicans may have a majority, but do they have mandate?

Given that I saw people saying Obama didn't have a mandate (despite a majority in votes, states and EC members) because of a reduction in support, isn't the same applicable to the House Majority, indeed is it not more so?

It's an interesting question, and one I expect Democrats to be asking if there is a block to a deal.

fate

No way. It's a President who gets blamed for the economy, something Obama knows well.

Is this because you think that Americans don't know how their government works?

danivon wrote:By the way, on mandates, more votes were cast for Democrats than for Republicans in the House elections this year. That is so far in the counting, by only about half a million, and that doesn't account for uncontested seats - but there's no 'mandate' for a victory by default).

Because of relative turn out and the way that districts are laid out, the GOP has managed to get a majority of Representatives from a minority of the vote. This is a 'feature' of first past the post, but is exarcebated by gerrymandering. I know that the US is a republic, and the Presidency and the Senate are not supposed to simply reflect majority national opinion, but the reason to have that was explicitly to balance out a House that was to be elected on the popular vote on short terms.

So, the House Republicans may have a majority, but do they have mandate?

Given that I saw people saying Obama didn't have a mandate (despite a majority in votes, states and EC members) because of a reduction in support, isn't the same applicable to the House Majority, indeed is it not more so?

It's an interesting question, and one I expect Democrats to be asking if there is a block to a deal.

Actually, much of this gerrymandering is because of the Voting Rights Act which mandates minority majority districts. As a result, heavily urban-African-American districts are heavily (over 85%) Democratic resulting in Republican pluralities in much of the rest of the state.

Although we think of blue state vs. red state, if you look at the map by district the split is really urban/close suburb vs. rural/most suburbs. It's just the urban coasts (including great lake coasts) that is Democratic. It just so happens that creates majorities in the blue states. Most of the territory in those states is red.

On the larger picture, I think you are right that the President has a mandate to raise taxes on those families making more than $250,000; but it's also true that individual house members have a mandate to not raise taxes. They are thinking locally because that's how they get reelected.

Hence our existing stalemate and stock market swoon. If both the House and the President follow their mandates, we will go off the fiscal cliff. It will really require Presidential leadership to solve this. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think he has the stuff for that.

rickyp wrote:fate

No way. It's a President who gets blamed for the economy, something Obama knows well.

Is this because you think that Americans don't know how their government works?

Do you ask these sorts of questions because you actually think you are smarter than Dr. Fate or is it because you think Americans are idiots?

How many states does the preclearance part of the VRA apply to? I thought it was just the ones with Civil Rights problems from the 60s. Bartlett v Strickland (2009, USSC) limited the requirements to favour minority candidates and I think other Supreme Court decisions have struck down 'minority majority' districts, although I don't disagree that it is a factor (although there are ways to draw districts that are less biased and will still give decent representation).

But there are other reasons for the gerrymandering, and both parties do it. Some states use an independent commission to draw up the boundaries, but most basically decide through the legislature, and a lot of it is done simply to benefit incumbents (because unless one party has a lock on the legislature and the governor's mansion, they need to come to a mutually beneficial deal with the other).

Still, if Obama had won with fewer votes than Romney, we'd all be getting told that he had no real popular mandate.

As for a mandate, if Axelrod says there isn't one, I think it's difficult for other to claim there is.

I await rickyp's answer.