Long term implications of Election 2008?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Which general postulates do you think will emerge from this election cycle? I'm asking this in IMHO, not GD or the Pit, because I would like to avoid partisan arguments as far as possible. It's more of a gut-check kind of thing I'm looking for, pure speculation that can't be proven true until a few more election cycles pass.

I think, for example, that this is the last time the Republican Party will nominate a woman for national office for the remainder of my lifetime (assuming that McCain-Palin loses and that Palin catches some of the blame for that.) I think they're going to learn the wrong lesson--not that a qualified woman would have attracted votes but that a woman will only attract Republican votes if she's to the right of the Party in general. I think they'll say, "Hell, we coulda nominated a hard-right provincial male boob and done at least as well" and never nominate another woman for decades.

I also think Obama (if he wins or loses) is the last black Presidential candidate I'll see running for a while. If he wins, it's like, "Okay, we gave you a black president, now shut up about how racist this country is for a while." If he loses, it's going to be "This country isn't ready for a good black candidate running against a weak white man, no matter what the polls and the democratic primaries might say."

[Boyo Jim]

I think there's not much point to asking this question before the election. The long term implications will be a LOT different depending on who wins.

Should we just go ahead and answer this question on the assumption that Obama will win?

[RyJae]

I think whoever wins whether D or R, will lose seats in 2010 and the Presidential elections on 2012. I honestly feel bad for whoever inherits the problems, I think Americans have a bad habit of pushing the problems on whoever is in control at the moment. They do not look into the past to find the root cause, they just want to blame someone in power right now.

So unless by some miracle the economy gets chugging along, it will be a bad time to actually win this election. IMHO of course.

[Dignan]

One thing that I don't think gets enough coverage in elections is what will happen in the court system. The next president could get to nominate anywhere from one to four Supreme Court Justices. I'm basing that off the age of the four oldest justices, with the possibility of retirement, or death. Of course, maybe none go, or more go. Even naming one justice, depending on who is replaced, will have a big impact on the long-term future of our country.

[Manda JO]

A lot depends on voter turnout on election day--if we see huge numbers of first-time voters, I think that will emphasize that a party needs to play to win--run a candidate people actually are excited about--not just play to not lose, running a candidate that won't piss off your people and might entice a few of theirs.

If, on the other hand, all the same people show up to vote and all the people that usually stay home, stay home, I think we won't see charismatic candidates again for a long time. People will go back to playing it safe.

[ElvisL1ves]

Either way it turns out, any hindrances to other blacks and women running for high office in the future will be so heavily weakened as to no longer be major factors.

There's just no saying what the effects of the next presidency, as distinct from the election, will be.

[ultrafilter]

One conclusion we can safely draw from this election no matter who wins is that, with the proliferation of user-generated content on the internet, image control is a completely different game from what it was even in 2004. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out as a younger, more internet-savvy generation of politicians starts rising through the ranks.

[Cat Whisperer]

I think this election cycle has been very interesting as it has pulled back some of the curtains on weaknesses inherent in the US American political system. Of course, I don't think for a micro-second those weaknesses will get *fixed*, but I think many people who weren't aware of them have become grudgingly, uncomfortably aware that something isn't working right.

[ultrafilter]

I think this election cycle has been very interesting as it has pulled back some of the curtains on weaknesses inherent in the US American political system.

Such as?

[AuntiePam]

One of the many things I'm afraid of with a McCain victory is that the slime and negativity and lying will never stop.

One of the many reasons I'm rooting for Obama is that he seems to be trying to keep the campaign clean and focused on issues, and the 527 groups who support him are following his lead.

[Shodan]

If Obama wins, and he may, Democrats will have to come up with some new excuses when they fuck up.

Regards,
Shodan

[jsgoddess]

I think getting a black candidate this close, getting a female candidate so close to nomination for the presidency, and getting a female candidate this close to the vice-presidency will have knocked down huge barriers, no matter our opinions of any of the above candidates.

That isn't to say that the problems are over and it's all sunshine and roses from here on out.

No matter the outcome in the general, the Democratic race showed the importance of the ground game. I think that's very important for the future. The general might show the same importance, but I think it might be harder to tease out just where the ground game made the most difference.

No matter the outcome of the general, I think websites like www.fivethirtyeight.com are showing interesting and important statistical analysis of various polls, methods, and predictions. For example, they nailed the exact trajectory of the vp and convention bounces despite the unprecedented clustering of those events within a two week window.

The super-saturated nature of the coverage makes me think this is the last time an unknown like Palin (or Quayle) will be chosen as VP. I also think the extremely late vp announcements have been shown not to be effective for either party.

That's all I can think of that I think has general applicability.

[Cat Whisperer]

Such as?Basically what Shodan said. Also, your system is set up to have the foxes in charge of the henhouse, to the point where you have hardly any hens left now.

[UncleBill]

If McCain wins, Hillary will be the Democratic Party Nominee in 2012 and will likely win (with an "I told you I was the better choice in '08" campaign). I don't think McCain would run for re-election because he'll be old in '12, so it would be a Hillary-Palin matchup in November 2012, unless Palin implodes in the next 48 months.

If Obama wins, he would run for re-election in '12 and probably lose (I don't think either Presidential choice will survive into a second term, politically). The Republican race could be Romney, Huckabee, and maybe someone new like Mark Sanford from SC. Hillary would probably be washed up by the 2016 election campaigns, which would be her next shot.

McCain has swung right the last six months or so to pander to the Republican Machinery, but if he is elected I don't think it will be as Right Wing a Presidency as we've been suffering through the last eight years.

[Jolly Roger]

If Obama wins, and he may, Democrats will have to come up with some new excuses when they fuck up.

Regards,
Shodan

Well if McCain wins, and he may, we'll know that we fucked up....and the last 8 years let alone the ten days I have been one kinda long fuckup.

[AHunter3]

I disagree with pseudotriton's dual postulates from the OP.


a) I honestly think the Republican Party would get behind any solid Republican candidate who did well in the early primaries (even polling well in the months before Iowa caucuses), if she's a team player, if she isn't already branded a RINO or otherwise unpopular within the GOP for nongendered reasons. Kay Bailey Hutchinson perhaps. The folks most likely to squeeze up their faces and say "ewww, a female in office?!" sure aren't doing so w/regards to Sarah Palin. Would someone like Hutchinson have some extra barriers to hurdle due to Palin's performance in '08? Possibly. But not to the point of ruling out a successful candidacy.


b) The Dems will get behind any candidate who lights their fires. Or looks highly capable of stomping Republican ass in the election, or both. If Harold Ford Jr., currently not even 40 yet, puts his hat in the ring in 2016 and looks good to Iowa voters, early season bloggers, and the like, I don't see the Dem mainstream OR the Dem leadership going "Eww, we already had our black fella, we so do not wanna be the Kullered Party". It would be more like "Obama already proved it doesn't matter". Now he might get creamed in the primary season, sure, but it would be more likely due to him being too conservative for the party faithful.

[Duke]

I'm going to take this from the potential losers' view.

If McCain loses:
I also disagree that if McCain loses, the GOP won't see a female on their ticket for years to come. What I think will happen is that the RNCC will insist on more say over the vice-presidential candidate. When even commentators for the National Review are starting to question the VP pick, there's a problem. I think that if McCain loses, the RNCC will blame Palin for dragging the ticket down, and McCain for selecting her. Never mind that it's likely that completely left to his own devices McCain probably would have picked Romney or Huckabee, both of whom would have at least done better on CBS News. The RNCC will not let a presidential candidate have a choice like that again.

And, honestly, I think that's all the GOP will take from the election if McCain loses. They'll chalk his loss up to the bad economy, high gas prices, and Palin. There won't nearly be the soul-searching that accompanied previous GOP losses. Long-term, though, if the GOP loses the presidential campaign they're in a heap of trouble. They've all but conceded control of the House, and their Senate campaign chair understands that his goal is to ensure that there are at least 40 Republicans in the next Senate. Before the 2006 election the Dems had 45 Senators; now they have an outside chance at 58. The GOP has to put all its chips on the presidential race--losing it is going to hurt.

In a nutshell the GOP is going to have to figure out how to regain its majority base. The Dems now have a wide lead in party registrations, and new registered voters favor them by a wide margin. The GOP hoped that regional demographic changes would help them (their traditional power bases in the Mountains, Plains, and the South are gaining population while the mainly Democratic Northeast is losing population), but it hasn't worked that way, mainly because migrants are taking their politics with them and tilting some Western states blue. Furthermore, the single-party voters the GOP have counted on in previous elections don't seem to be making an impact in a campaign where the economy is looming so large.

If McCain loses this year, the 2012 GOP candidate is going to have to present a substantially different platform to attract former Obama voters. That, or the GOP could hope for economic situations simliar to this year's.

If Obama loses:
It seems certain to me that if Obama loses on Election Tuesday, Hillary's campaign is going to start Wednesday. I think Hillary will immediately position herself as an unofficial Leader of the Opposition: every real or imagined misstep by McCain/Palin will be attacked, every policy questioned. That doesn't mean Hillary would be a dead cert for 2012. We've already seen that she's vulnerable to overconfidence. Four years of being the mouthpiece of opposition could be a bad thing...but it also could help Hillary define her position. Headstrong as Hillary is, I think even she could learn from her mistakes this time, especially on campaign infrastructure. The odds would favor a McCain/Clinton race in 2012.

I think if Obama loses, he stays in the Senate and starts to rebuild his political career. I can even see him making another presidential run some years down the road. He'll quietly build foreign policy credentials in his safe Illinois seat.

The biggest consequence for the Dems if Obama loses I think will be psychological. An outside observer (if one could exist) would look at the last four presidential elections--two near-landslides for the Dems followed by two extremely close wins for the GOP--and wonder why the Dems have been saddled with the "loser" tag. I think some of it is a bit of paranoia ("We would have won but Diebold/the MSM/wedge issues stole it from us") and a bit is historical (only two Dem presidents since Kennedy). I think another loss would cause the DCCC to make policy changes they don't need to make. There's a lot of fear on the Dem side and the consequence of fear is to make bad decisions.

So...since three years ago I predicted McCain to be the GOP candidate and Obama to be the Dem candidate (OK, the VP candidate, but close): here's a cut-out-and-keep prediction sheet for 2012.

If GOP wins: McCain/Palin vs. Clinton/Richardson

In Dem wins: Obama/Biden vs. Romney/Sanford

[jsgoddess]

Never mind that it's likely that completely left to his own devices McCain probably would have picked Romney or Huckabee, both of whom would have at least done better on CBS News.

I disagree with that. Left to his own devices, McCain would have chosen Lieberman. I think he and Romney despise each other.

[Duke]

I disagree with that. Left to his own devices, McCain would have chosen Lieberman. I think he and Romney despise each other. Yeah, I suppose you're right. I still think McCain will still be blamed for picking Palin, rather than the RNCC being blamed for not letting McCain get his initial pick.

[jsgoddess]

Yeah, I suppose you're right. I still think McCain will still be blamed for picking Palin, rather than the RNCC being blamed for not letting McCain get his initial pick.

Honestly, though, I think Lieberman would have been a disastrous pick as well, without that initial bump in enthusiasm from the conservative side.

[puddleglum]

If Obama loses we will be treated to whining about how it was just because of his race. If Obama wins we will have four years of how disagreement equals racism.

[CapnPitt]

Duke I think you make an excellent analysis. However, I'd fault you on half of the Clinton/Richardson ticket. I don't think the Clintons will ever forgive Bill Richardson for switching over to Obama early on. I'm still hoping that Richardson might be our president some day.

[Cyberhwk]

The next president could get to nominate anywhere from one to four Supreme Court Justices. I'm basing that off the age of the four oldest justices, with the possibility of retirement, or death. Of course, maybe none go, or more go. Even naming one justice, depending on who is replaced, will have a big impact on the long-term future of our country.Especially important for Democrats. The average age of the liberal wing is 75.5 while the conservative wing is only 61. Kennedy, the swing vote is 72. Scalia is the oldest conservative at 72 and would probably asked to be propped up on the bench after death before letting a Democrat fill his seat.

My point, basically being, Democrats have nothing really to gain but to shore up the liberal wing of the court, but they have a lot to lose.

If Obama wins, and he may, Democrats will have to come up with some new excuses when they fuck up.
No we don't. We'll just recycle the same ones the GOP used when they fucked up and controlled both branches for 5 years. ;)

As for my own...

Just about every word a presidential candidate speaks for an entire year before the election is now taped and documented. I think "flip-flops" will become old hat. Every candidate will be guilty of it and there was undoubtedly be video evidence of such.

[Duke]

Duke I think you make an excellent analysis. However, I'd fault you on half of the Clinton/Richardson ticket. I don't think the Clintons will ever forgive Bill Richardson for switching over to Obama early on. I'm still hoping that Richardson might be our president some day.
I think Clinton might need Richardson a bit, though: she'd need a westerner, preferably a Washington outsider, with foreign policy experience to balance her ticket. Richardson fills that role. Plus she can pretend that she's "put politics aside" by selecting a former rival.

[CapnPitt]

Well, you might be right, but I don't think they're that likely to forgive and forget. I actually thought for sure Obama had promised Richardson the Veep spot when he jumped so early.

[GomiBoy]

It's a bit of a poisoned chalice either way - the President gets to really lead for 18 months before he has to start running for re-election, and whoever wins is gonna have a huge fight in front of them with Iraq and the financial crisis occupying most of their time. They won't have time for the majority of their agendas at all, they'll spend too much time just trying to fix problems. IMO, the US government works best with three branches in opposition, so that's the best outcome I can imagine.

If Obama Wins:
Same problems of the last 8 years with a majority for one party in both houses and in the Executive - fast ramrodding of deeply flawed, not well considered, and poisonous bills because of lack of opposition. Congress's approval ratings go even further into the toilet, and partisan infighting reaches the highs seen in Clinton's terms. We gradually pull ourselves out of foreign adventures and slowly work our way out of financial crisis and back into the black, but have to fight partisan battles every step of the way to get there. Obama gets re-elected in 2012, but Dems lose the majority in Congress.

If McCain wins:
The Democrats in Congress scream bloody murder and retaliate with legislative warfare. Everything McCain tries to do is shot down or destroyed in committee; his vetoes are overturned. He is seen as powerless and weak, especially after being effectively forced to flip-flop on Iraq and bring the troops home in 16 months anyways as Congress dries up the funding. Congress's approval ratings drop as they're seen (and portrayed by RW media) as obstructionist but Dems maintain control of the House and Senate in the mid-terms although with tight majorities. 2012 - McCain bows out; Palin wins the nom but loses the elections, and the Democrats retain control of the House but lose control of the Senate. Obama wins the Presidency.

2016 - Not being saddled with the debt and failed policy of the past 8 years, Obama can run on his policy, not on just not being Republican, and since he's starting from a much cleaner slate than in 2008 he can actually get stuff done. Dems lose control of the House and Senate, with a strong majority of Fiscally Conservative Republicans beefing up the Republican rolls, but Obama's policies win enough bi-partisan support to pass with strong oversight from Republicans in Congress.

[jsgoddess]

Obama wins the Presidency.

2016 - Not being saddled with the debt and failed policy of the past 8 years, Obama can run on his policy, not on just not being Republican, and since he's starting from a much cleaner slate than in 2008 he can actually get stuff done. Dems lose control of the House and Senate, with a strong majority of Fiscally Conservative Republicans beefing up the Republican rolls, but Obama's policies win enough bi-partisan support to pass with strong oversight from Republicans in Congress.


So, you don't believe the Obamas when they say this is a 1-shot deal?

[GomiBoy]

So, you don't believe the Obamas when they say this is a 1-shot deal?

No, I don't believe that. I think if Obama loses in 2008 he'll be a shoe-in for 2012 and will be 'drafted' even if he doesn't really want to run. I also think he's a standard bearer that Democrats haven't seen the like of for quite a while he's got large parts of the population excited in a way they haven't been and actually can string coherent sentences together and certainly doesn't appear weak the way others have.

Palin the same, but IMO she's far more of an empty suit and can't carry a POTUS run all on her own against any sort of internal or external competition no matter her street cred with the Social Conservatives.

I just wish Colin Powell would run for something; I'd vote for him in a New York minute.

[jsgoddess]

No, I don't believe that. I think if Obama loses in 2008 he'll be a shoe-in for 2012 and will be 'drafted' even if he doesn't really want to run.

Huh. Well, I think that if he loses he'll be blamed for his color losing a "sure" Democratic election and he'll turn into one of those eternal "if only" candidates that people moon about later. Like Gore.

[GomiBoy]

Huh. Well, I think that if he loses he'll be blamed for his color losing a "sure" Democratic election and he'll turn into one of those eternal "if only" candidates that people moon about later. Like Gore.

I do try to be colour blind in most things, but you could have a point. I'd hate to think of someone as remarkable as Obama calling on the race card to blame his defeat on, but it could be a very real possibility amongst some of his more adamant followers and who knows what the Dems leadership thinks about these things - I'm not sure they understand actually how to win 50 states anymore.

I believe Gore lost because he was too arrogant and thought it was a sure thing, and also because he was running with the legacy of Clinton around his neck which wasn't entirely a good thing at the time - more of the same, the country did not want. Kerry lost for similar reasons of arrogance - he and the Dems just couldn't understand how or why anyone would vote for Bush, and therefore alienated that section of the electorate, and that alienation was stage-managed and taken advantage of very well by Rove and the RNCC. That, and Kerry was a milktoast candidate at best - his only strength was not being George Bush. Obama's got a healthy dose of that arrogance himself, but the Republicans have dug themselves such a deep hole and are so low in opinion polls I don't see that is as much of a disadvantage as in 2000 or 2004.

[AHunter3]

I believe Gore lost because he was too arrogant and thought it was a sure thing

:confused::dubious:

If he did, no one else did. The media hype was that after 8 years of a Dem in office, the winds of change were blowing for the Republicans, and there was this unbeatable guy from Texas, real aisle-crossing consensus-making and a crowd-pleaser, George W Bush, odds-on favorite, freaking destined to win.

Now, McCain peeled a lot of the polish off of that early patina by doing well against Bush in the Repub primaries. Bush looked less inevitable. And the meme about him being too stupid to talk got started.

But the attitude was somewhere between "Bush is inevitable" and "Gore actually has a chance".

Sure thing for Gore? Where? Who?

[Peanut Gallery]

The Supreme Court is the most obvious and serious of course.

Beyond that, I expect mostly business as usual either way. Meaning deeply partisan idiocy from both sides for the whole four years. Ramping up to an even more bitter (and somehow even longer) 2012 campaign. Vetoes, over-rides, filibusters, shameless finger-pointing. You know ... DC. I don't expect either candidate to really change or accomplish much. 2012 will still have US troops in 2-3 wars, enormous budget deficits, crumbling infrastructure, no univ. healthcare ... and abortion, guns and jesus will still be THE issues to run on. Either way, America continues on the path of being bitterly divided.

If Obama loses, I don't think he will run in 2012.

If Obama wins ... I'll be genuinely shocked. I will have to take back some hateful things I have said about America since 2004. After America officially approved of GWB's first term, I wrote off any expectation of sanity or decency around here. Right now, I really don't believe this country is capable of electing a D president. That's simply not who America is. On the other hand, if America now proves that it can learn from its mistakes (even if it has to make them twice in a row to do so...), I'll start the process of forgiveness. I'll be able to bring myself to donate to a D candidate without thinking I'm better off burning that money. I just can't take America seriously enough to do it this year. A McCain win would of course only reinforce what I already know about Americans.

If McCain loses OR wins, I don't think he will run (or breathe) in 2012. Palin or someone else moves up. I will not be the least bit surprised if she serves her own 8 years as president after being VP. She is perfect for America. If McPalin loses, she goes home to Alaska, loses her next election there (if she's not removed sooner), and is forever remembered as the bad joke she is. That might seem contradictory to the statement before it, but either is equally likely. If she wins they sculpt her as the savior of the party, and dumb as she is, it'll work. If she loses, it was all her fault.

[Tom Tildrum]

Public financing of the presidential campaign is dead. Obama's decision not to participate has legitimized opting out, and no future candidate will want to accept the spending restrictions.

[Der Trihs]

Peanut Gallery pretty much summed up my opinions. I'll add that McCain being elected will further smear America's international reputation; it will be a seal of approval on Bush's actions. It will make it clear that our stupid and evil actions are not due to having a stupid and evil President who acts against our will, but to having a stupid and evil President because we are as a nation stupid and evil. Bush is President primary because he is a reflection of American's nature; stupid, greedy, ruthless, amoral, ignorant, delusional, fanatic and brutal. "Don't blame all Americans for what Bush did" will become even more threadbare an excuse.

And I do think that Obama will lose; our voting system is corrupt ( Diebold ) and I consider America much too racist to elect a black man President. As often happens, I expect that a lot of people who claim to be Obama voters to switch at the ballots and vote for McCain purely over race.

[elfkin477]

No matter who wins, the long term implications of this election will include hammering out a new primary schedule that both sides of the aisle will be more eager than usual to stick to. I may well be accused of tinfoil hattery, but I honestly don't believe McCain would have had such an easy path to victory if MI and FL dems hadn't been told their votes weren't going to count, and allowed to vote in the republican primary. (there are quite a few claims that exit polls for the republican primaries showed that 1/3rd of voters in those states' identified themselves as democrats) Hopefully states or parties will press the issue and ensure that no voters are disenfranchised/given free rein to meddle with the other party's nommination in elections to come.

Speaking of disenfranchisement, it should also be interesting to see if there are the usual cries of supposed voter disenfranchisement from the left after the election now that they've shown a documented willingness to discount the primary votes of two entire states' worth of their own voters. Somehow, I don't think this will stop the common hue and cry. (You might not think primaries are as big a deal as the federal election, but a lot of people do.)

Oh, and after the inevitable diebold scandal in November and December, the company will finally fold, and states will go back to optical scanner/other paper ballots.

If McCain wins, we'll hear four years of whining and complaining from the left about how he's just like Bush (even though he's not), and people were too stupid to elect someone who could have gotten us out of our messes.

If Obama wins, we'll hear four years of whining and complaining from the right about how he's just like Clinton (even though he's not), and people were too foolish to elect someone who could have gotten us out of our messes.