If the Republicans win

[Ender]

Disgust with my fellow Americans, followed by a serious re-evaluation of my priorities, beliefs, and plans. If you can't beat them, join them.

[CaptainZoidberg]

On the plus side we'd get some shiny new nuclear plants, and to be completely selfish the military industrial complex will probably improve my salary once I get out of school, because engineering jobs that require security clearances can't be outsourced. Also, McCain is way more likely to stand up to the Teacher's Union, and we might see progress on issues like merit pay and strengthening NCLB.

On the down side I'd miss out on Obama's huge increase in the Community Service Work Study.

[Invictus ChiKen]

Disgust with my fellow Americans, followed by a serious re-evaluation of my priorities, beliefs, and plans. If you can't beat them, join them.

I tried that. Don't go down that path Ender you'll hate yourself for it. Trust me I know see my sig for more details.

[Big Phil]

if McCain is elected I'll expect all you plonkers talking about leaving the country to put your money where your mouths are. I think you're just talking big, however, and aren't going anywhere.

You don't happen to be in New Zealand, by any chance...?

Washington State - what's with the NZ reference?

[Uraniun235]

On the plus side we'd get some shiny new nuclear plants, and to be completely selfish the military industrial complex will probably improve my salary once I get out of school, because engineering jobs that require security clearances can't be outsourced. Also, McCain is way more likely to stand up to the Teacher's Union, and we might see progress on issues like merit pay and strengthening NCLB.

On the down side I'd miss out on Obama's huge increase in the Community Service Work Study.

Why would an Obama win prevent new nuclear plants?

[Darth Hoth]

Plus, if he won, it would only be by a margin slim enough as to be assigned to pure, unadulterated racism, people simply unwilling to vote for a black man.

Why do the racist voters invalidate the majority who, say, merely dislike Obama's proposed foreign policy and opposition to free trade?

[Darth Wong]

Plus, if he won, it would only be by a margin slim enough as to be assigned to pure, unadulterated racism, people simply unwilling to vote for a black man.

Why do the racist voters invalidate the majority who, say, merely dislike Obama's proposed foreign policy and opposition to free trade?

Because they voted for some reason other than competence, thus poisoning the whole process. Do you honestly not understand how a huge poison-block in a voting process makes a mockery of the result?

[Straha]

The democratic party implodes.


Hillary Clinton and the "Moderate" wing point at Obama and scream "WE WERE RIGHT! WE TOLD YOU SO!" as moderates like the Clintons, Lieberman, etc. coalesce around making the Democratic party centrist.

The "left" wing of the party points at Obama and screams "SELL OUT! If you'd stuck with your guns and stayed anti-NAFTA, anti-tax cut, and advocated the liberal stances that you held to in the senate and that won the primary you'd be in the white house!" And they back off and coalesce around new leadership.

The enviromental wing of the does the same and tries to beg Al Gore to come back into politics.

In general, though, the democrats sit around and wonder just how they could have failed with the most popular politician America has seen in twenty years, and the only politician who could fill a stadium with 75,000 people. They also review every last thing that went wrong with their campaign, and just how muddled and ineffectual the Obama campaign has been for the past two months. (And how Obama, even now, is less popular than Mike Dukakis.) The democratic party will not be able to hold on to congress unless they shape up and get their approval rating into the double digits, and we'll see a moderate conservative resurgence in America.

The Republicans, on the other hand, gravitate towards John McCain. If the republicans win then they will treat this man as if he walks on water. As a man who turned a campaign which, until just before the convention, the RNC thought was unwinnable into a victory despite eight years of republican misrule where their very name has become a by-word for corruption... He'll be a leader the likes of which George Bush wishes he ever was. And if he regains control of his senses he might actually kick the party into actual fiscal conservatism and moderation. And the pundits like Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. who all trashed McCain as not representing the future of their party will have to accept that McCain is the present at least and will make politics for the near future. The worst (best?) thing is that unless McCain fowls up completely there'd be no democrat to challenge him in 2012. Clinton is a divisive figure who burned up all the good will she had in this past race, and who lost to Obama. All the RNC would have to do is say "She was second best to Obama, do you really think she's better than John?" The best she could hope to do is pull a Dole style campaign as a capstone and a gracious exit to a long political career (sorta like McCain was doing until the republican party realized it could actually win.) Dean wont give up his nice cushy job for all the world. Wild Horses couldn't drag Gore back to being a political public figure. Edwards is politicly dead for at least another eight years. Pelosi is an incompetent fuck. Ditto for Murtha.

In short, if McCain wins the democratic party is a dead duck for a while. The Republicans will probably try to reform themselves, and may or may not succeed.

[wautd]

I still think that all-out war with Iran is impossible. The military is overstretched as it is, and a draft is political suicide.

Yes, any reasonable person would see that.

[Fire Fly]

A Republican victory means that McCain will out-Bush Bush himself. With small cracks showing in the GOP base and McCain not exactly fulfilling every GOP wet dream, the party leaders will squeeze his balls so tight until he sings soprano. When they say jump, he'll say how high; when they say dance, he'll ask samba or line. Moreover, it'll be an irrefutable demonstration that there is something seriously wrong with a significant portion of the American population. If the last eight years isn't proof enough that the country needs a serious direction change, that will only reveal that said voter is either rich, gets off on the Bible, or is totally ignorant of simple facts.

[CaptainZoidberg]

Plus, if he won, it would only be by a margin slim enough as to be assigned to pure, unadulterated racism, people simply unwilling to vote for a black man.

Why do the racist voters invalidate the majority who, say, merely dislike Obama's proposed foreign policy and opposition to free trade?

Because they voted for some reason other than competence, thus poisoning the whole process. Do you honestly not understand how a huge poison-block in a voting process makes a mockery of the result?

And you don't think that there is a significant block of people who only support Obama because he has African heritage?

[Darth Wong]

Why do the racist voters invalidate the majority who, say, merely dislike Obama's proposed foreign policy and opposition to free trade?

Because they voted for some reason other than competence, thus poisoning the whole process. Do you honestly not understand how a huge poison-block in a voting process makes a mockery of the result?

And you don't think that there is a significant block of people who only support Obama because he has African heritage?

Don't be stupid. Only 13% of the American population is black. Compare that to the estimated >1/3 of the population which admits that racial prejudice affects their vote.

[Darth Hoth]

Because they voted for some reason other than competence, thus poisoning the whole process. Do you honestly not understand how a huge poison-block in a voting process makes a mockery of the result?

I was not aware that the "poison-block" was "huge".

As an aside, since when are elections about competence? I thought the point was that one would vote for the candidate who would best represent one's views and interests, not necessarily the one whom one thought smarter or better educated/more experienced.

[Anguirus]

As an aside, since when are elections about competence? I thought the point was that one would vote for the candidate who would best represent one's views and interests, not necessarily the one whom one thought smarter or better educated/more experienced.

Competence is certainly a factor in my analysis of who to vote for as well. Are you saying it is irrelevant to you?

[Edi]

As far as the racial divide in the US goes, I had this to say on another forum when it became necessary to comment on it:

It's been around 40 years since the civil rights struggle in the US and the end of segregation. A very, very large number of people who were a-okay with that are still alive and they mostly vote Republican because they see Democrats as "the party that welcomes those uppity niggers". Their children have often absorbed a lot of the racist attitudes from their parents and grandparents even if they are not so overt about it. This situation is going to get better over time as the old farts keel over dead and the civil rights struggle moves further into the past and finally starts phasing out of living memory. Once it does that, the US society will be able to start truly healing the wounds instead of just keeping them swathed in bandages and fighting infection.

For a point of comparison, Finland had a civil war in 1919-1921 and it is only now that it's become a subject that can be talked about without instantly igniting a destructive flamefest on the national level. And we had another war in between where everyone fought on the same side against the Soviets without any regard to what side their family had been 20 years earlier. The wounds are closing just now, nearly 90 years afterward. You guys aren't even halfway there yet.

Only healing this is likely to last a lot longer, because the skin color difference between a white person and a black person is immediately obvious to anyone with eyes, whereas whether you hold a certain ideology or its opposite is not apparent until it comes up in discussion. So it's easier to perpetuate discrimination based on skin color because you never need to let anyone close enough to even get an idea what they are like as people.

[Darth Hoth]

Competence is certainly a factor in my analysis of who to vote for as well. Are you saying it is irrelevant to you?

By no means, but I primarily consider the politics a candidate represents.

[Darth Wong]

Competence is certainly a factor in my analysis of who to vote for as well. Are you saying it is irrelevant to you?

By no means, but I primarily consider the politics a candidate represents.

Those are also a reflection of competence. Contrary to popular belief, most candidates probably want the best for their country in the long term. Even if they're self-centred assholes, they want to leave a positive legacy in the history books. They want to be spoken of in a hundred years as a good president. But some of them simply have absolutely no clue how to do that, which is why they choose boneheaded policies. The last 7 years have been a good example of that.

[Darth Wong]

I'll move to Canada like I would have done if I had lived here in 2000 or 2004. Honest to gosh, I would have!

Seriously though, most of the negative affects described so far are those which everyone postulated on in 2004 (and which largely came true). It'll likely happen again, but more so. Left-leaning citizens will feel disillusioned, the international community will arc an impressive looking eyebrow and wonder what the hell happened, Democrats will be in shock and will probably try and "Republican" themselves up to try again in 2012 and the Republicans will act like that rich Texan in the Simpsons and will do whatever they want, guns a-blazing.

I don't think the international community will wonder at all what happened. I think the international community has lost so much respect for the American voting public that nothing will shock it any more. I've been saying for a loooong time now that predictions of an Obama walkaway victory were premature.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

The Republicans, on the other hand, gravitate towards John McCain. If the republicans win then they will treat this man as if he walks on water. As a man who turned a campaign which, until just before the convention, the RNC thought was unwinnable into a victory despite eight years of republican misrule where their very name has become a by-word for corruption...

Sorry, but no. If John McCain wins, it will be because he had Sarah Palin flummoxing his opposition while reassuring the Republican base that John McCain only says he's a "maverick" to scare those evil LIE-berals, and that they can have their cake, and stick a thumb in the eyes of those Goddamned secularist "progressives" by electing a properly God-fearing woman Vice President.

He'll be a leader the likes of which George Bush wishes he ever was. And if he regains control of his senses he might actually kick the party into actual fiscal conservatism and moderation.

I tend to agree more with the sentiment that the evangelical neo-con wing of the party will have him by the balls. He's going to be 76 in 2012, and given the way the office of President ages people, he's not going to want to do much of anything that could rock the boat, stress him out, and put him in for the long dirt nap before he can retire gracefully and let Palin have the nomination in 2012.

The only good thing about that is that he's not apt to start a new shooting war with anybody. However, the trends started by eight years of Bush will only continue unabated, and SCOTUS will almost certainly gain a more conservative bent. How conservative will depend on what happens in the Senate races. Obama might not win the White House in this scenario, but he may get a lot of Democrats elected to Congress.

In short, if McCain wins the democratic party is a dead duck for a while. The Republicans will probably try to reform themselves, and may or may not succeed.

Hahaha... no. If the Republican party wins with POW John and Miss Congeniality, they're going to take it as a sign that the correct way to win elections is to give anyone to the left of Ronald Reagan a big "fuck you" and pander even more to their present power base of oligarchs, neo-cons, evangelicals, and other assorted assholes, and any future Republican candidate will be encouraged to sell their souls to aforementioned assholes and make just enough noise about "reform" while offering something distractingly shiny to keep the typical fence-sitting American voter hooked for the thirty or so seconds their attention span lasts (as a McCain/Palin victory would only prove that the way to win elections is to hammer on the Republican core message while waving shiny, distracting things at people.)

Once he becomes President, John McCain would have no real reason to "come to his senses," except only as far as it takes to keep things shambling along so he can spend his administration grooming Miss Congeniality until she has that distinct air of inevitability when she gets the Republican nomination in 2012.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Why do the racist voters invalidate the majority who, say, merely dislike Obama's proposed foreign policy and opposition to free trade?

Because of wedge issues and the slim margin of victory; the last two elections had a margin of less than 3% of the popular vote. The most important part of the electorate is not the base of 40% or so, who you don't even have to try to win, but the fraction of voters who act to push your candidate into a majority to win the election. It's like when a parliamentary democracy forms a government without a clear majority; there's a large party and one or two small parties who form a coalition, one has 40% and the other has 12%, but the smaller one still plays a very important role.

Given the closeness of the polling, the small but significant "I ain't vote for no darkie" bloc will be critical to a putative McCain victory.

[Bellator]

This article sums up pretty well how I feel.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... bama/print

I consider the US to be my second home, but will be hugely dissapointed if Obama loses. Gore losing I could play off as a fluke. Kerry was just a bad candidate (war hero, experienced, but oh so dull. Just like McCain). But if Obama manages to lose against one of the worst Republican candidates in living memory, I give up. It's impossible for a non-conservative to win a national election. Gore losing wasn't the fluke...Clinton winning, was.

Disgust with my fellow Americans, followed by a serious re-evaluation of my priorities, beliefs, and plans. If you can't beat them, join them.

I'm likely to do the same. Though more specifically, only care about what affects me and mine. Gay marriage? Abortion? Welfare? Iraq? Healthcare? Doesn't affect me, therefore don't care. Being a selfish bastard when it comes to politics might make things a lot easier to bear.

I just can't keep going through this every 4 years...

[Darth Wong]

But if Obama manages to lose against one of the worst Republican candidates in living memory, I give up. It's impossible for a non-conservative to win a national election. Gore losing wasn't the fluke...Clinton winning, was.

Clinton was pretty conservative. There hasn't been a liberal politician in power in America since Jimmy Carter. American society has swung pretty far to the right on many issues, thanks to the Reagan Revolution and all of the media outlets which have jumped on that bandwagon. In a hundred years, they'll probably look upon Reaganism the same way they look at Leninism today, as a failed experiment that dominated a nation for generations.

[Metatwaddle]

Gore losing wasn't the fluke...Clinton winning, was.

More people voted for Gore than for Bush, you'll recall.

[Xisiqomelir]

I'll be out three grand.

[nickolay1]

In a hundred years, they'll probably look upon Reaganism the same way they look at Leninism today, as a failed experiment that dominated a nation for generations.

I don't think that this is a fair comparison. The consequences of Leninism in the Soviet Union included a huge increase in the standard of living, a massive boost in life expectancy, the rise in literacy rates from ~30% to ~100%, a reduction in poverty, equal rights for all, the prevention of probable extermination of its population (trying to imagine the Russian Empire defending against Hitler makes me cringe), etc. What good can be attributed to Reaganism?