The challenge facing the Republicans

THX1138

If this carries on the GOP is going to left with a few trailer parks in Wingnuts Ville Texas and that's about it

Tiberius

The Dems were in meltdown in only 2004, yet they have won this presidential election (admittedly only after a collective nervous breakdown of the electorate - I think I paraphrase Mel correctly).

I don't think American voters have developed a visceral dislike of the GOP as their British counterparts did of the Conservatives in 1997.

If US interests suffer terrorist atrocities as a result of softer security attitudes, Obama will feel the heat, and the GOP will benefit.

Iran has to be dealt with in the time-honoured way, as unpalatable as that may be.

Of course if Obama does succeed in foreign policy, domestic issues should be a piece of cake in comparison. Then the Republicans would be looking at 2016 at least.

MrJones

After 8 years of relentless Bush bashing what do you expect?

It's their version of the shy Tory syndrome.

Ben Lewis

I am not sure NC can be classed as "solid Democratic". Apart from this Presidential election NC has usually lent Red in Presidential elections at least. NC gubernatorial elections are a slightly different story. In terms of national political impact, voting preferences at the Presidential level are probably more salient.

TrevorsDen

This is meaningless.

The future depends on how America comes to terms with Obama, which is I suppose another way of saying it depends on how Obama's policies pan out.

Republicans are taking the hits from the Credit Crunch - which is a sad irony since its Democrat funders like Soros who are making a mint out of it and the bad debts have their origins in the Carter and Clinton eras.

Regan and indeed Bush junior have show the Republicans can build the necessary coalition to win elections.

Obama has already made his first mistake in that he thinks the likes of Bin Laden will stand by and let an idealised 'peace' break out.

Sam Armstrong

This map shows nothing but the latest fashions. The map will look somewhat different once America wakes up to what it has gone and done. Do we in the UK care now what the scarlet red map of '97 meant to us then? No.

Verity

Number Plate, proudly parading your ignorance, as always. Wing Nuts Ville, Texas.

They never used French words for towns in Texas, which was formerly part of Mexico, after all. All unAnglo usages are Spanish. As in El Paso. San Antonio. Matamoros. Laredo. Or Native American. And so on. Perhaps you were getting it confused with its neighbouring state, Louisiana, which was formerly French. They use French place names in that cou des les bois.

If you're going to try to sound worldly and dismissive about aspects of the United States, based on both your visits, you should make sure you get it right.

THX1138

Maybe you're all right that today's map doesn't mean that much in the longer term but in the medium term It's a different story. Nate Silver the savant pollster says it all looks real bad for the GOP in the 2010 Senate races.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/01/just-five-red-states-left.html

"If party affiliation stays close to what it was in 2008, then giving the seats that are up for election, Democrats could very easily pick up another another 5-7 Senate seats in 2010, giving them not just a filibuster-proof majority but also a nearly veto-proof one"

I would remind you that his predictions for both the Primaries and the November General Election were freakishly accurate.

Craig Strachan

By the looks of that map, Mormons are the Republican base.

dilys

It will all change colour when Obama starts messing it up.
The media built him up and the media will tear him down.

Nick Kaplan

THX; if you actually looked at the map you would see Texas is a 'competitive state' not a Republican one as your comment implies (I realise this assumes you can identify Texas on a map which is probably a bit much to ask of you...).

Perhaps you could grow up and stop making such crass assumptions about those you term ‘wingnuts.’

Nicholas

"It will all change colour when Obama starts messing it up. The media built him up and the media will tear him down."

Not if the national socialist revolution works there as it did here. One of the manifestations of the new fascist-tendency socialism is the ability of its leaders to foul up really badly but still sail on regardless. Truth becomes lies and the lies become truth. It is what they do and the media are complicit in the charade.

Emotive, mass movements embracing zealotry and prejudice are dangerous. Mao's cultural revolution was disastrous but in this country and in America we have two herberts appealing for just that sort of radicalism.

Stadia, chanting crowds, slogans, rallies, microphoned platforms and speakers with fire in their eyes. The pop concert narcotic of shallow soundbites and mob hysteria. Urgh. We never learn do we? The sad thing is that as the new fascism takes the West there will be no-one to offer refuge or to liberate us from it.

THX1138

"They never used French words for towns in Texas"

Verity-Obviously you have never seen the 1980's Wim Wenders film Paris Texas. Beautiful story of love & redemption with fine performances from Harry dean Stanton & Nastassja Kinski and of course that iconic Ry Cooder soundtrack. I can thoroughly recommend it

Cute little town last time I visited and it even has it's own website so you can see for yourself

http://www.ci.paris.tx.us/

Verity

Craig Strachan - How exciting for your prejudices. Have you ever been to N America? It's frightfully large. I mean, larger than Hampshire, say.

I would still find it entertaining to read your explanation of your comment above. I lived in the US for a few years and never met a Mormon. Where do you find them?

Conservative Cabbie

THX

"Nate Silver the savant pollster says it all looks real bad for the GOP in the 2010 Senate races"

Of course that's assuming that nothing happens politically between now and 2010 and that's not very likely is it? We have a million dollar so-called stimulus package which might not stimulate anything and an inexperienced CIA Director which means that should there be a terrorist attack on US soil, it can be laid squarely at Obama's door. There's a lot that can go wrong by 2010 and dramatically change that map.

Also, take note of this from the National Journal

"The wording and placement of the question matters. Not all pollsters ask about party ID the same way. Some follow the lead of the University of Michigan's National Election Survey, asking respondents, "Generally speaking, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat, an independent or what?" Some follow the slightly different version first created by Gallup that asks, "In politics, as of today, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat, or an independent?" Many political scientists believe that phrase "as of today" makes the Gallup version more responsive to short-term changes"

Finally, between Watergate and 1980 (only seven years), Republican party I.D. jumped 18% and Bush had a lower approval rating than Nixon.

Despite the seemingly weekly "disaster for the GOP" posts that americano has, all is not lost for the party. 2010/12 may be too early but the party is not becoming one for Texan wingnuts only.

Conservative Cabbie

THX

Another quick word on GOP prospects for the future. It seems Independents oppose the pork infested stimulus plan by a massive margin of 23%. I wonder if Nate Silver added that into his equation. That's a big bunch who might vote Republican in 2010 if the stimulus package fails.

THX1138

Hi Nick kaplan My little brother THX1139 lives in Tulsa Oklahoma and I've been on a couple of road trips in North & West Texas so I do know where it is thanks for asking & don't you think that your side should be worried that Texas is even in the competitive column.

Cabbie as a side point I'm surprised as a true conservative that you defend 'W" presidency considering the profligate spending & erosion of of liberty we have under his stewardship. I would have you down as a Ron Paul man ?

I thought the GOP were rather cynical in voting against the stimulus package considering they had nodded through every ridiculous pork filled spending binge of "W" .

On your point of course I agree that the map could change very quickly but you must agree that unless Obama really drops the ball badly in the next couple years which is unlikely I would say but I would say that wouldn't I the 2010 Senate races do look bad for the republicans.

A veto proof senate majority for the Dems would make me as happy as a tornado in a trailer park.

Thought you were brilliant on the "self hating Jew" post on Mel's blog, well done.

Verity

Number Plate - Yes, two exceptions by settlers from France, in a vast state that takes 12 hours to drive across at speed. ("The sun has riz, the sun has set, yet we is, in Texas yet.") The other is a group of Germans that settled a little town they called New Braunsfel. Three pocket sized examples in a vast piece of territory whose towns and cities are named in English, Spanish or Native American. Your presenting 'ville' coupled with wing nuts as some clever summing up of the state is pathetic. Aspirational and wannabee. You wannabee American so much, but you don't qualify. Why don't you stop giving us your silly worldly take on a place you've only visited?

Nick Kaplan

THX; the only 'side' I have is liberty and reason, consquently I don't favour the Republicans or the Democrats, but faced with a bad choice I'd go for the religious nutters rather than the leftist ones. Ultimately the latter will do far more damage.

THX1138

TrevorsDen -

"the bad debts have their origins in the Carter and Clinton eras."

Actually no they don't!

This is an overused meme of many on the right to point to Carter & Clinton being responsible for this mess, never mind we have just eight hard years of fiscal spulrging by "W"

I believe you're talking about the Community Reinvestment Act, which requires banks to make mortgage money available in low-income neighborhoods.

Unfortunately for your argument defaults on C.R.A. lending are running much lower than on other lending.

Craig Strachan

Verity: "Craig Strachan - How exciting for your prejudices. Have you ever been to N America?"

(Yes, in fact I live in California and have done for getting on for 20 years.)

I would still find it entertaining to read your explanation of your comment above. I lived in the US for a few years and never met a Mormon. Where do you find them?

(Well, the few red areas of the map above include the states of Utah, Idaho and Wyoming. Utah is of course the heart of what is known in the Inter-mountain West as the "Mormon Empire", with a population that is 75% plus Mormon. Idaho and Wyoming also have significant Mormon populations of 30% plus and 15% plus respectively.)

Conservative Cabbie

THX

I'm quite prepared to have to sit aside for the next eight years which might not be a bad thing. A fillibuster proof democratic senate might not be a bad thing too. The last time the democrats had unrivalled power in Washington, Keenedy's and Johnson's sixties, their liberal excess ruined Democratic prospects in Washington for more than twenty years. If this so-called stimulus package is anything to go by, a Pelosi-Reid congress will be just as bad.

As for Bush, I see a lot of things wrong with his Presidency, I just don't resort to hyperbole in calling him the worst President ever. I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, whilst my conservatism has an element of libertarianism, it's also grounded in a degree of social conservatism and neoconservatism.

Thanks for the compliment though.

Conservative Cabbie

THX

I think the Republicans actually beat Obama on the stimulus package. He courted them, he put in tax cuts, he persuaded Pelosi to drop the condom provisions and the grass for the national mall, he even visited the GOP. However, despite all his bipartisan rhetoric, he and Pelosi didn't put a single GOP suggestion into the bill and hence lost the chance for any GOP support. The GOP played him, it's like Jimmy Carter all over again.

Look out for Republican whip Eric Cantor, a name for the future.

Nick Kaplan

THX; how precisely have you defined CRA lending because I would imagine your ‘fact’ about defaults on CRA is, in fact, nothing of the sort?

Aside from the fact that you have merely asserted it and provided no evidence or source for your claim which really makes me doubt its sincerity, the fact is that the loans/ defaults responsible for the current crisis are widely recognised to be loans made to poor people with poor credit ratings and poor employment histories, who had no plausible ability to pay back the loans and consequently defaulted. These are the very types of loan the CRA specified.

If your claim is merely that very few of the loans defaulted on are ones that banks were literally forced to make (i.e. by being sued by pressure groups like ACORN and lawyers like Obama, who did sue large banks for not meeting CRA obligations) then I am afraid your argument neglects to realise the fact that the banks were operating under the threat of force which amounts to the same thing. I.e. the banks understood that if they did not make loans meeting CRA specifications then they would be sued and forced to do so anyway, thus they did so in the first place without having to be sued, but only did so because the CRA was in place.

Thus even though the majority of ‘bad loans’ may be classified as non-CRA in the sense that banks were not literally forced into making them, it is very likely that such loans were made without the CRA in mind, or, in other words, the bad debt and credit crisis were caused by the CRA.

Perhaps your argument/ statistic/ fact rests on something else, and I would be interested to know what. So the question I am asking is how are you differentiating “CRA lending” from the “other lending” that you mention? Also could you provide some evidence for this assertion?... I won’t get my hopes up.

THX1138

Cabbie- Wow you certainly play the long game. I would love to debate this longer and make a more detailed response but I'm going out, I always enjoy a couple of rounds with you never anything below the belt, unlike some on this blog who just spout pure vile to anyone who disagrees with them

My understanding albeit through my librul tinted specs was that the Dems were shut for 20 years because to his huge credit Johnson signed the Civil Rights act into law alienating the South and of course the growing unpopularity of the Vietnam war didn't help.

My statement that "W" was the worst President ever was of course hyperbole how can I know I'm not expert on US Presidents and I like to put the cat among the pigeons with you lot. I do know is that he did leave office with the worst ratings ever in the lows 20%, Cheney's were far worse however somewhere around 13 %. it would appear that the US public had made up it's collective mind that this was an awful administration and thoroughly rejected it's brand of conservatism as witnessed by McCain running a mile from anything to do with 'W".

Obviously we're on opposite sides of the "culture wars" and my worry is that many on your side in US politics appears to be uninterested in traditional politics and only in the the social & religious aspects and the Bible has become the only political manifesto they are interested in.

I said in an earlier post that my little brother THX1139 lives in Tulsa OK "the buckle on the Bible belt" I remember on a recent visit discussing politics with a work colleague of my sister in law who told me that The Republican's were The Party of God which sound just like Hizbollah (doesn't that mean party of God). I found that rather troubling my sister in law said that that was a common POV amongst social conservatives in Tulsa. During the election my sister in law told that she had argued with her hairdresser about Palin and her lack of experience, the hairdressers response was it wasn't a problem because "God will guide her hand."

On the stimulus package I have no idea if it will work I just hope it does.

THX1138

Nick Kaplan - I did write a more detailed post but it got spiked by the mods for some reason, not sure why. I got the information about CRA from an article in Januarys Vanity Fair about the sub prime crisis called "Capitalist Fools" by the Nobel-laureate economist Joseph E. Stiglitz

I won't include the link in case that was the problem , but it's only one google search away. I know that VF is up with the NYT in you rightys list of librul elite of bogeyman but it's definitely worth reading even if it's just to get a different POV, we all get stale in our bubbles.

Verity

Number Plate "a work colleague of my sister in law...". What is a "work colleague"? Is it a wordier way of saying "colleague"?

Can I just comment again, on your vast ignorance of the United States? People there do not talk the way you have reported them as talking. I've never heard anyone talking about God at all - except TV evangelists, and that is show biz. The Buckle of The Bible Belt, eh? They seem to do things differently there. Unlike you, I lived and worked in the United States and never encountered any of the religious moonbats you regularly report on. If you're so contemptuous of Americans, why do you pant to be among them? Why are you always posing as an expert in the US, when everything you say is nicked from TV or newspapers or your Tulsa sister-in-law's "work colleagues", rather than personal experience?

And why do you think the Governor of the largest state in the Union, and the state with the largest reserves of oil and gas, is inexperienced? Why do you think negotiating billion dollar deals with Canada for a shared pipeline isn't experience? Maybe you should spend less time cruising YouTube and get a life.

THX1138

Nick Kaplan - I did write a more detailed post but it got spiked by the mods for some reason, not sure why. I got the information about CRA from an article in Januarys Vanity Fair about the sub prime crisis called "Capitalist Fools" by the Nobel-laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz

I won't include the link in case that was the problem , but it's only one google search away. BTW what I should have said in my earlier post was that CRA had a lower default rate than other sub prime mortgages rather than mortgages in general. I'm happy to clarify the point.

Conservative Cabbie

THX

"My understanding albeit through my librul tinted specs was that the Dems were shut for 20 years because to his huge credit Johnson signed the Civil Rights act into law alienating the South and of course the growing unpopularity of the Vietnam war didn't help."

That was partly it, but mainly it was because they became very liberal putting up candidates like Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. All were fairly lightwieght, all were very liberal and clashed with Nixon's "silent majority" who the GOP still see as their base today, evidenced by some of the rhetoric during the recent election. I like this quote about either the '68 or '72 Democratic convention: "There were still smoke filled rooms, it's just that the smoke smelt different". It gives you an idea of where the Democratic Party were.

"it would appear that the US public had made up it's collective mind that this was an awful administration"

That's true, so why did Obama only win with a plurality of 3%. It hardly suggests that the Republicans are dead and buried. Harry Truman left office with a 22% approval rating, three higher than Bush. He is now seen as one of the best Presidents of the 20th Century so Bush may get a decent legacy yet, today's elections in Iraq will help.

BTW, you may be interested to know that LBJ's civil rights legislation required Republican votes to pass Congress. It is right that he gets credit for the improved circumstances of African-American's but the GOP deserve their fair share of credit too.

THX1138

Cabbie You're probably right out about the Dems being shut out and the GOP's part in the passing of civil rights legislation. I'll yield to your obvious greater knowledge of recent US history. My knowledge of early US history is about to jump though just got my box set of the HBO series on John Adams from Amazon, my little brothers says it's brilliant and I'm excited to get started on it.

My understanding was that Obama's victory was a landslide in modern terms & in the EC his margin of victory was greater than the total EC votes obtained by McCain/Palin. Only time will tell if the GOP is dead and buried and only remains as some kind of Christianist southern party with few trailer parks in Wingnuts Ville Texas and no reach into the prosperous, educated and populated parts of the US. I for one hope they can rediscover their fiscal and libertarian roots and drop all this moralising, social conservative religious guff, I'm a Ron Paul man.

As for Harry Truman President Bush is no Harry Truman. I genuinely believe that "W"/Cheney administration is going to go down as one of the worst ever and a few elections in Iraq are really not going to help that legacy much, remember we invaded not to bring democracy but to find non-existent WMD and "W" pushed back against elections for the longest time. Probably best not to open that can of worms again though.

As for the stimulus and restoring the primacy of the constitution Andrew Sullivan made a good point today in the Sunday Times

"You saw it also last week as the Democratic president spent two long hours with House Republicans seeking consensus - which he did not require to pass the law - on the stimulus package. The Republicans never had that kind of respect from Bush. And they rewarded Obama with unanimous opposition in the vote on the package. But the symbolism was telling. "

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5626673.ece

Also looks like your dream of a filibuster proof Senate is about to come true again from today's Sunday Times

"Obama is striking back with an audacious bid to acquire a “liberal super-majority”, giving the Democrats untrammelled power in the White House, the Senate and House of Representatives. He hopes to appoint Judd Gregg, a Republican senator, as commerce secretary, leaving Gregg’s Senate seat at the disposal of the governor of New Hampshire, a Democrat.

If Gregg is appointed and Al Franken wins a disputed Senate recount battle in Minnesota, as seems likely, the Democrats will attain a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the Senate, allowing them to push through policies without obstruction. "

I enjoyed our little debate I hope you did too, should you wish you can have the last word.

Nick Kaplan

THX; aside from the fact that I completely distrust both Vanity Fair and particularly Stiglitz (who worked for Clinton and probably had a role in the expansion of CRA and consequently has a very strong incentive to say the crisis has nothing to do with it), surely you realise that sub-prime and CRA loans are the same thing. The CRA told banks to loan to people who would not have otherwise been lent to i.e. people who were ‘sub-prime,’ so I really don’t know what a sub-prime but non-CRA loan is (except perhaps a sub-prime loan made before the CRA, sadly for you these don’t exist). You/ Stiglitz may mean a sub-prime loan which the banks were not literally forced to make, but as I have already said, when you know you will be forced to do something if you don’t choose to do it (and being forced costs you a tone of money in legal fees) then you tend to do it without being actually forced, even though if there were no threat of force you would not have done it. I find the argument that this had nothing or even little to do with the CRA very unconvincing, although I do realise that other factors were responsible such as very low interest rates that made it attractive for banks to behave even more irresponsibly.

Also, you are right to say “we invaded not to bring democracy but to find non-existent WMD” if by we you mean Britain. Of course in America, as much if not more was made of the need to ‘liberate’ Iraq from Sadam’s rule.

Craig Strachan

THX1138: "My understanding was that Obama's victory was a landslide in modern terms"

It was a 365/173 landslide in electoral votes, while the Dem ticket won by a clear 7% over the Reps in popular vote - the most convincing margin in 25 years. The 50/50 nation is no more.

Craig Strachan

Nick Kaplan: "Of course in America, as much if not more was made of the need to ‘liberate’ Iraq from Sadam’s rule."

Well, a lot more was made of the liberationist motive after it became obvious that Saddam simply didn't have the WMDs Bush told the American people and Powell told the UN he did have.

Conservative Cabbie

Craig Strachan

"while the Dem ticket won by a clear 7% over the Reps in popular vote - the most convincing margin in 25 years. The 50/50 nation is no more"

Amazing that you can make such a decleration after only one result - a result generated by the most propitious of circumstances in the Democrats favour. Strip out some of the African-American vote and a record youth cote and that 3% plurality Obama won starts to die away quite rapidly.

Conservative Cabbie

THX

I always enjoy debate, it's how I get the most out of this site.

I'm sue you'll enjoy John Adams, a brilliant piece of work (I'm up to episode four). It's slow moving, but the acting is superb. I saw a picture of the real John Adams, Paul Giamatti, the actor who plays him, even looks like him.

On the 60 democrat senators. I've just seen a report that Judd Gregg has stated he won't accept the Commerce Secretary position unless his governor appoints a Republican to replace him, so probably no fillibuster proof senate yet.

Andrew Sullivan - slaps hand to forehead. I don't think there's anyone I despise more than that idiotic Trig-truther. The symbolism he should be referring to is the failure of Obama to build any sort of consensus around a Democratic spending blitz. The stimulus package is a disaster and the Republicans were right and principled to rebel against it en masse.

I know you enjoy your little digs at the GOP, so here's mine on Obama. He's been President for two weeks. So far, he's appointed two tax evaders to cabinet positions and after imposing sweeping ethical changes about lobbyists, broke his own rules twice within the space of a week. How's about that for the politics of change?

Pleasure as always.

THX1138

Nick K Thanks for replying- Firstly I love VF the best magazine in the world. I'm genuinely perplexed by this whole sub prime CRA, CDO business it's all way above my pay grade. You say the Nobel-laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz and adviser to Presidents albeit probably Presidents you don't like is partisan and wrong but no no doubt your position is partisan also. Who should I believe Nobel-laureate economist or some bloke on a blog?

I think that blaming it all on Carter & Clinton is simplistic, entirely partisan and wrong. I think this is an issue of markets, It's no ones fault but the system that we all love. Markets do this they have done it forever & they will do it again & in 10 years time it will be some other bubble. There will be more gnashing of teeth & partisan blame but it will really just be human nature "greed & fear" that's what causes all this problems always has always will.

Yep" we" I meant Britain I remember TB telling us that it was all about WMD, clear & present danger and all that stuff also that Saddam could keep his job if he came clean about the WMD . It was never about bringing democracy, maybe it was more so in the US I don't know. Seems to me the democracy stuff came later when the WMD were nowhere to be found.

Craig that's a big win I wonder why so many on this blog still seem to think is was close. I'm coming to southern California for three weeks in the summer to hang out with mates in LA , can't wait.

Nick Kaplan

THX; I have already told you that I have no partisan interest (in fact I supported Clinton and think he was a far better, if less honourable, President than Bush, who I do not have much time for).

However what I do particularly care about is the truth, and the truth is you have no idea about the accuracy of the purported fact you presented us with about CRA because you cannot even explain how you are differentiating CRA and non-CRA sub-prime loans.

Neither have I said that it was entirely the fault of Carter or Clinton. Instead I would lay the blame at numerous people like the lobby groups, the media men and many of the leading members of the House committee on Financial Services (republicans and democrats alike but particularly people like Barney Frank) for demanding, introducing, expanding and enforcing this ludicrous act on the ludicrous grounds that banks were using racist lending practices.

Also I only said that CRA played a large role in the crisis, by no means did I say it played the only significant role. Poor regulation (NB. This does not mean too little regulation) particularly regarding capital reserve ratios mixed with irresponsible banking and very low interest rates were also a lethal combination.

The only point I am trying to make is this is hardly the fault of non-existent free-markets. Instead it is the fault of the current mix of regulation and markets (a mix I would not want ended but amended), and consequently we need to think very seriously about where to go. What we should not do is have a knee-jerk anti-capitalist reaction (as seems to be occurring) and then destroy any hope for future prosperity by incompetently regulating the market to death. We certainly do not want to go back to the1970s type regulation that some guardianista types are hoping for.

Key to working out what to do is understanding how we got here, and if you ignore the role played by certain legislative acts, because it happens to be politically convenient, then the result will be more regulation, more legislation, more unintended consequences and more problems in the future. As always in politics Politicians are too quick to act (or be seen to be acting) and too slow to understand. In making the wrong decisions we will, as always, so the seeds for the next crisis.

THX1138

Nick Kaplan what a detailed reply. You're right I don't know much about CRA I read something in a magazine I like & I repeated on a blog I like. My only defence is that my source did/does seem credible. I have know issue with being put right about the facts thanks for your input.

What I am sure about is the pain we are going through in this recession is not a failure of market economics. It is in fact a reassertion of market economics after a decade in which we paid ourselves more than we were producing. Maybe you can tweak the rules but you can't buck the markets. I'm still a bear of GBP & bull of Gold I hope the markets are kind to me in Feb.

Goodnight and thanks for a great debate.

Craig Strachan

Conservative Cabbie: "Strip out some of the African-American vote and a record youth cote and that 3% plurality Obama won starts to die away quite rapidly."

Yes, if only the franchise were limited to elderly white men with high school educations, McCain would have won hands down!

Conservative Cabbie

Craig Strachan

You know that's not the point I was making. The black and youth vote were extremely high for this one election, much higher than previous ones which makes it an outlier. Without a cool black candidate, they vote in much smaller numbers restoring the 50/50 balance.

So, do you want to be so dismissive about that point too or are you going to give that brain of yours a bit of an exercise?

Nick Kaplan

THX; you obviously read the Mathew Parris article as well. I completely agree with you on this point, the crisis and the recession certainly seem to me to be a correction or an adjustment to a new and more realistic status quo. I just hope others realise this before it’s too late and we have wasted too much money trying to stimulate the economy into another decade of artificial growth.

Craig Strachan

Conservative Cabbie: "Without a cool black candidate, they vote in much smaller numbers restoring the 50/50 balance"

Well, Obama will be on the ticket in 2012 and my guess is he will win even bigger the second time out.

We don't know what the post-Obama landscape will be like. He may well be an durable coalition builder like Reagan (and the Reagan Democrats became a pretty reliable part of the Republican coalition.)

There's also the argument that early preferences of young voters tend to stick - so hoovering up so much of the youth vote can only bode well for the Dems.

Also, you omit to mention the Latino vote. Obama's powerhouse perpormance amongst them is a highly significant indicator of the future of the Democratic coalition, and is not so easily attributable to him being black and cool.

Craig Strachan

THX1138: "Craig that's a big win I wonder why so many on this blog still seem to think is was close."

Well, to be fair they seem to think it could have been a lot worse for the Reps. Of course they are right - and in 2010 and 2012 it may well be a lot worse!

" I'm coming to southern California for three weeks in the summer to hang out with mates in LA , can't wait."

I'm in L.A. Shoot me an e-mail if you want to get a pint or something when you're in town: CraigStrachan@aol.com.

Conservative Cabbie

Craig

You got me with the latino point. That's the one area that does concern me. The GOP are going to have to think hard about how they address that.

Your point about the youth is well taken although I disagree. Generally, the older people get, the more conservative they become.

All this talk about demographics exists within a vacuum of actual politics. A 3.5% swing back to the GOP wins them an election. Bear in mind that the incumbent President had the lowest approval rating in history and the Republican nominee was unpopular with his base and went a bit mad in the run up to the election. Then throw in the fact that a month before the election, the economy blew up. Then consider the unique "cool black" factor. When taking all those things into account (actually the absense of those factors), it doesn't take a huge stretch of imagination to see a 3.5% swing back to the 50/50 electorate. It may well be 2016, but knowing the arrogance of the left as evidenced by the recent stimulus package, they will blow themselves up in time.

THX1138

Craig & Cabbie The anti immigration rhetoric and voting of the GOP (apart from "W" and his big business backers who wanted the cheap labour) has undoubtly hurt them with the Latino vote.

The GOP has basically told a large & growing set of organised voters in the southern states that the party doesn't want them. I just can't see how that is a good idea!

Conservative Cabbie

THX

"The GOP has basically told a large & growing set of organised voters in the southern states that the party doesn't want them"

I'd say this rhetoric is a little extreme. I think it would be more accurate to say that Republicans don't want to support the rights of ILLEGAL immigrants. They value latinos but they also value the law.

Latinos are in fact a really good prospect for the GOP, they are a very industrious and entrepreneurial group. The question of immigration just needs to be resolved. Once it is, the GOP would be an ideal home for latinos.

THX1138

Hi Cabbie , hope you don't mind me jumping back in.

"they are a very industrious and entrepreneurial group."

I agree, means they will be voting Dem then along with the rest of the entrepreneurial class. I wonder how McCain/Palin polled in Palo Alto? Badly I'll wager.

On a more serious point cynical Republican politicians courting the loony Minutemen to shore up the base in the border states, for illusory for short term gain has hurt the GOP badly with Latino voters

I'm sure you're right that they do value the law but they want the law changed and they have a long memory.

Conservative Cabbie

THX

I think you're confusing big business and the entrepreneurial class.

Of course big business supports the Democrats, the Democrats are their biggest allies with their obsession with regulation.
You will find that by and large, small business is strongly supportive of the Republican party.

I think the latino vote is their biggest challenge going forward. Are you in favour of unlimited immigration then. Or an amnesty for all illegals plus their extended families? The Democrats are and I wonder why. Perhaps it's those 50 million new votes that they are trying to buy.