Would it be better for USA, Dems if McCain wins?

Great Debates
1

Yeah, I know, counterintuitive (read ‘dumb shit’ if you want :D) as all hell. But hear me out a moment.

  1. If Obama or Clinton gets elected:
    a) S/he won’t be able to get a damned thing of importance accomplished: 41+ GOP Senators will filibuster their entire legislative agenda.
    b) They’ll be the ones who not only have to clean up after the usual GOP messes of war, massive deficits, and all, but will have the recession and the Big Shitpile dumped in their laps as well.

No matter what the President does, it’ll be an uphill battle to get to 60 Senate Dems in 2010, so that s/he can actually start doing important stuff in 2011, like address global warming.

  1. If McCain gets elected:
    a) He won’t be able to do anything particularly irrational either - there’ll be about 55 Dems in the Senate, and they should have a bigger House majority than now too. Besides, I doubt McCain will be able to play the head games with them that Bush has.
    b) He’ll have the Bush recession, the Big Shitpile, the trade deficit, the falling dollar, etc. dumped in his lap - and his answers won’t be particularly useful.

By 2010, things will be really really bad.

The silver lining would be that, at that point, it would be clear that it wasn’t just Bushism that had failed, but Republicanism generally. The 2010 midterms would have a good chance to be an avalanche to make 2006 look trivial, and give the Congressional Dems that probably wouldn’t be veto-proof, but close enough to fracture the political logic that’s turned the GOP into essentially a parliamentary party in recent years, and enable the Democratic majority to run the country in 2011-12: to address global warming, institute universal health care, and otherwise make a dent in solving the country’s problems.

The one irrevocable downside of a McCain Presidency is that he surely would feel obligated to appoint some wingnut judge to the Supreme Court when Stevens retired. And my WAG is that Stevens is just trying to outlast Bush at this point. And even with 55 votes in the Senate, the Dems probably won’t block the nomination. Still, a solid, long-term legislative majority can really cut back on the harm a Supreme Court majority the other way can do.

So, is this crazy, or what? :smiley:

2

The trouble with a likeable president is that he is not the one running the country.
It’s all the party hacks that pour in on his coattails to fill every bureau and judgeship.
Did anybody really vote for Cheny? Or those supreme court dupes?

3

The risk is too great. McCain is even more hawkish than Bush. And even hogtied by a deficit, he still would have the powers of CinC, as the W Admin has greatly expanded them and gotten away with it so far. I’d rather see President Obama or Clinton struggling to keep afloat than President McCain casting a baleful eye on Iran.

4

Why ? The Democrats have demonstrated again and again what spineless cowards they are. If McCain gets elected, I expect that they’ll cave in to his every demand - it’s what they do.

Which is a reason NOT to vote for McCain. There are more important things than playing games to get Democrats elected.

Or if things get as bad as you or I think they would in such a situation, create the kind of situation that discredits both parties and lets the crazies take over. Even at the best, a lot of irreparable harm would be done.

And I don’t see how it would be “better for the USA” to drag it through hell just to get Democrats more power.

5

I think it’s unwise and dangerous to believe that your party (either one) is the only one which can save the country, and in order to get that party in full control you have to left the other party virtually destroy the country first. Now, I know you didn’t literally say “destroy the country”, but things in your scenario become “really, really bad”.

I don’t buy the idea that a McCain presidency would be bad. In fact, I don’t think it would be too terribly different from a Clinton or Obama presidency. Any of them is going to be limited in what he or she can do to affect change. But I’m very suspicious of anyone who is willing to take this country through “really, really bad” times just to get their party in a position to run the whole thing. It’s a terrible idea if you actually believe it.

6

It’s insane…or what. Think about it. You are gambling that A) Things will get worse by the time McCain is leaving and B) That people will associate all that bad stuff with the Republicans.

Odds are just as good that things won’t be worse when McCain is leaving and might even be better…might be MUCH better in fact as these things are cyclical. And I’m not seeing people associating all the bad shit that has happened under Bush with the Republicans…at least wrt McCain. And he SUPPORTED Bush!

And then there is this:

That is a very long term effect…and pretty much the thing the Dems need to be fighting for the hardest in this election is to get a Dem (ANY Dem, Obama or Clinton) in the WH to try and re-balance the SC.

I think you are captured by the Bush is evil and the font of all badness meme here…things won’t necessarily go from bad to worse to disaster. There is a good chance that by the mid-term of the next president we will be in a recovery mode economically and on the way to the next big boom (bio-tech is my guess), that Iraq will be resolved or at least on the way to a resolution and that things will be looking up. Oh, it might not happen that way…but it MIGHT, ehe?

-XT

7

I agree with xtisme - Anyone other than the current administration will be very good - though clean up will most likely take until midterm. Granted I think Obama will do the best job by far, but then I’m not keeping it a secret.

So to answer your OP - No.

8

Weren’t Democrats saying this in 2004? “Well, Kerry’s just going to have to deal with the war, and I wouldn’t wish that on a Democrat! He’ll be a one-termer for sure!”

… and in 2000? “Bush is just going to screw things up, then people will realize how good they had it under a Democratic administration!”

The virtue of those engaged in public service – whether a bureaucratic paper pusher or the leader of the free world – is to use power to do the best one can for the people around them. One of the worst aspects of some engaged in public service is to stand idle while things go to pot around you, biding one’s time until one can be viewed as a white knight charging to the rescue: that’s vanity and egoism, not service to the people.

9

So, the worse things get, the happier you’ll be, because that will mean the Republicans will get the blame?

Seriously?

So you should be glad Bush won in 2004, because otherwise Kerry would be getting the blame for Iraq. But why stop there? You should be glad Bush won in 2000, because otherwise the voters would’ve blamed Gore for all the bad things that would’ve went wrong in that alternate universe. And it’s too bad Clinton won in 1996 and 1992, it would have been better if Dole and Bush Sr. won, because, gosh, didn’t Clinton catch a lot of flack for his mistakes?

Heck, why not just keep on electing Republicans from now until Doomsday? After all, as things get worse and worse, the Republicans will get more and more blame.

Your proposal shows a complete lack of faith in the value of the Democrats. Their only hope of winning office, or passing legislation, is if the Republicans screw up so horribly that the voters have no other choice. Is the important thing to prevent bad things from happening, or is the important thing to prevent Democrats from being blamed when bad things happen?

But the problem is, what if John McCain doesn’t screw up horribly? But that’s impossible, he’s a Republican, of course he’s going to screw up horribly! But what if he doesn’t, or what if he screws up horribly, but the American people suffer from false consciousness so severe that they think his screw ups are good? Who won the 2004 presidential election? It’s a pretty good likelyhood that John McCain won’t be as incompetant as George Bush, right?

I mean, since George Bush is easily the most incompetant president of the modern era, simple probability would suggest that John McCain won’t turn out to be quite as incompetant. A combination of total incompetance and conservatism has soured a generation on conservatism and the Republican party. But a few years of partial competance and conservatism on McCain’s part, and suddenly the voters don’t feel like they need a rape shower when they vote Republican anymore.

Or maybe you’re right, and after four more years of McCain, the voters will finally, finally see the light. Except the problems will be (from your perspective) 4 more years worse. You want us to keep digging for four more years, because in four more years it will be that much more obvious how deep the hole is? That’s your plan?

10

But let me add… One does have to wonder why a Democrat would even want to have to inherent Bush’s mess. It will be a daunting task to clean up the situation in Iraq, although I do agree with Xtisme that some of the things the OP is talking about are cyclical in nature and will get better or worse independent of which party is in power. Iraq is really the big issue that Bush is leaving for resolution. Afghanistan, too, but if you’re able to get us at least partially out of Iraq, then you have a better chance of getting the other situation under better control. But what a mess that is going to be as we move forward. No good solutions there.

I don’t see UHC ever getting through Congress-- at least not in my lifetime. We’re struggling here in CA to get it through the state legislature and it’s a real struggle. Doing the same at the national level has got to be at least 10x harder.

11

I’m glad you added that. Tells me you’re just floating an idea, and haven’t really bought into it. Right…? :slight_smile:

12

Never mind policy; think about how many Supreme Court justices Obama or Clinton will be able to appoint.

The conservatives are very worried.

13

:stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: Oh, it’s just too rich!

14

Alternative energy, we are already at the beginning of it. We’ve gone from the stage where the tech is developed to the stage where billions are being invested in the infrastructure to roll it out to the consumer.

NanoTech/Biotech will come together and change the face of the world as we understand it. Think changes akin to the industrial revolution, though probably in half the time.

15

Agreed…or just general eco-tech. It’s always hard to predict the next Big Thing™ but if I had the money I had in the 90’s to invest I’d be looking to invest in either Bio-Tech or alternative fuels/Eco-tech right now. And THAT boom will probably be rolling during the next presidents term, whoever wins.

-XT

16

Honestly: do you see the Republican Party being capable of saving the country, without almost totally changing what it’s all about first?

There’s nothing wonderful about the Dems, but at least they’re semi-rational. The GOP’s basically off the deep end.

As opposed to just really pretty bad if the Dems are in charge.

Realistically, things are going to be bad in 2009-10 no matter who wins this election.

Depends on ‘really, really bad’ compared to what, doesn’t it?

I certainly believe it’ll be worse under a Republican, because (a) it always is, and (b) stock GOP answers to all economic questions will be completely irrelevant to the recession we’re headed into. But we’re talking the possibility of a limited amount of added short-term pain for the total discrediting of an ideology that’s pretty much come down to “we luv war, we luv tax cutz, we hate librulz.”

17

Actually, I’m thinking November 2010, when McCain won’t be leaving unless he has a stroke or something.

If we’re out of the woods by November 2010, please feel free to tell me then that you told me so. I’d cheerfully bet that, whether we’re technically in a recession or not, the job situation will be much worse then than now, and won’t feel like it’s getting better.

Well, people don’t know that. But people do blame the party in power for fucking up the economy.

I disagree. Most of the damage the Supremes do is in gutting laws rather than the Constitution. A legislative majority can fix that.

I disagree. IMHO there’s little chance that this will be a short one - the fundamentals are so screwed up. We’ve got a ton of Big Shitpile that they’re miles away from sorting out before the credit markets can right themselves; we’ve got a year’s inventory of unsold houses; we’re on the way to 20-25% of homeowners having negative equity in their homes (what sustained the Bush recovery? Homeowners being able to borrow off their increased equity. Oops!); businesses weren’t investing in increased capacity even before Big Shitpile hit; you name it.

But like I said, feel free to tell me ‘I told you so’ if I turn out to be wrong.

Well, all sortsa stuff might happen. Fundamentals are pretty bad in Iraq, too - the ‘good news’ is that we’re ‘only’ at 2005 levels of violence. But we’ve got an unsustainable level of troops there to make that happen. And our allies want us to move troops to Afghanistan, because why should they care about it if we don’t, when it was our war to begin with?

18

Again, you are counting on something that is beyond control. McCain is only 72. That SOUNDS pretty old, but really I know people a decade older than him and still going strong. He could be good for a full 2 terms…and if things aren’t as bad as you seem to think they will be he might just do it. Sure, he LOOKS like death warmed over to me…but apparently he’s neck and neck with both Obama and Clinton atm…so someone must find him appealing, even if I don’t.

I disagree. I think our economy is fundamentally strong even if it’s relatively in the shitter atm. I think it’s very possible that a few years from now things will pick up. As to the job situation…it’s better even today than it is in Europe. Do you predict they are about to tank as well?

Do they? Then why is McCain in the running at all if that is the case? And here is the thing…if you are wrong and the economy DOES pick up then who are they going to give the credit for that to? The President…who ever that is. If it IS McCain…well, Bob’s your uncle…

All I can say to this is I completely and totally disagree with you. I’ll leave it at that.

I disagree but am willing to wait and see. I don’t think things are anywhere near as screwed up to the level you are saying here. To me you are like the guy in the mid-80’s or mid-70’s saying everything is in the shitter and we will never get out of the hole…

And the same here. If it all goes tits up feel free to kick over my card board box and snuff out the fire I have going in the TV when we are all in a Mad Max world. I guess we’ll find out who is right and who is wrong.

The thing is, I don’t believe that whoever is elected president in this cycle will make one wit of difference…it will smooth out or got tits up regardless of who is elected IMHO. YMMV.

Thing is…if it DOES happen then your plan goes right out the air lock and the Dems are back where they were a decade ago. In short you guys would be fucked if it DID go well with McCain at the helm…which is why I think your plan is nuts, ehe? :slight_smile:

-XT

19

I think you’re arguing with something I’m not saying. I’m not talking about whether McCain will serve one term, two terms, or anything like that. My only assumption is his being President through the 2010 midterms.

I agree. I expect it to start picking up in a few years - which would be 2011.

I’ll take your word for Europe, though their safety net makes for an uneven comparison. But the main thing is, nobody here is going to say, “well, we’re better off than those Europeans.” They’re going to look at their own prospects, and those of the people they know.

And in recent recessions, what one might call the ‘jobs recession’ has lagged the end of the GDP recession by a few years. Remember the ‘jobless recovery’ of the early 1990s? The early 2000s were even worse in that regard. (Heck, median household income is still running below its peak before the last recession.)

IOW, there’s no reason to believe that most Americans will feel their situation is improving by the fall of 2010.

He wants to be President, and this is his last chance.

Oh, I agree. I’m just reasonably convinced that the ‘if’ is unlikely to manifest itself. I’d be willing to bet that, whatever the bottom of the jobs market is, we’re not as much as 1/4 of the way back to present levels by the October 2010 labor statistics that will be released that November, in terms of employment-to-population ratio.

Fair enough.

Not ‘never,’ just that the reluctance of the parties holding pieces of the Shitpile to see it truly valued anyway, and the complexity of unraveling the layers upon layers of CDOs and SIVs to get down to stuff that can have some sort of valuation made, is going to gum up the works for this year and a good chunk of next. We won’t really hit bottom, in the standard sense, until after the unraveling is mostly done. And once again, the jobs recovery will lag the GDP recovery.

When even Alan Pangloss Greenspan is saying that this looks to be the biggest economic crisis since WWII, there just might be something to it.

Was there supposed to be a smiley there?

In the post-WWII era, the economy has consistently done better under Dems than Republicans - that’s been well-documented. (Both with and without lag times.) I’ll dig up a cite later. And the reasons for this seem to be clear - Dems are more likely to funnel jobs and other assistance to people who actually need the money and will spend it, which stimulates the economy better than giving it to people who will put it in the bank, then invest it in stocks.

Now that McCain’s established that he’s almost as ignorant about Iraq as he is about economics, I’m pretty sanguine here.

That would be correct. I would certainly NOT advocate that the Dems throw this election, but I do beleive that the result of one more GOP Administration, with things going the way they are, would be an even deeper awareness by 2010 than in 2006 that Republicanism itself had failed, with the attendant electoral consequences. And with the chance that a negative result in the Presidential election might be effectively reversed in two years rather than four, I don’t see the consequences of losing this one being nearly as bad as losing the 2004 election.

Which reminds me: Lemur, I still owe you a response - I’m not ignoring you. But I’ve got to get some work done, darnitall. Later. :slight_smile:

20

I don’t think the country needs to be saved. We need to get out of Iraq and we certainly have a few other problems to deal with, but I think both parties have pluses and minuses. There have always been problems that need to be solved, but this country is much, much more than the government. For most of us, the government just doesn’t play a big factor in our everyday lives. We’ve got work to do, kids to raise, and our lives to enjoy.