Zarf wrote....

"If McCain wins, it means they are happy with Republicans.  Therefore, by supporting McCain, one of two things happen:
1: Republicans win, and you're wrong, because straight-ticket voting takes place.  Your argument only assumes a general Republican antipathy, not one unique to McCain.  Therefore, McCain can still influence popular opinion to support the GOP, so the GOP can still win, solving your problems.
2: Obama wins, and something else happens.  But if you give up on McCain, this is inevitable anyway, so let's not worry about it.

Either way, if there's a greater chance of your problems being fixed by voting for McCain just due to the slight chance that the GOP will also win the House/Senate, isn't that better?"

You are wrong there. If McCain wins, it will not be the Republicans that give him the victory. It will be the independents. He is gonna lose A LOT of votes from his base due to his liberal ideas, but the independents will overwhelmingly fix that deficit. They will not however do the same for the house and senate. Two different beasts when it comes to them voting. If we had that chance, it would have happened in 2006.

"Alright, then.  So you have a tool to overcome the media bias, and a damn effective one at that.  However, this bites back to two arguments I already made:
1: You can overcome media bias, so you don't need to make America go suicide bomber on itself just to show everyone that liberalism sucks.
2: If the Dems win the presidency and Congress, they'll pass the Fairness Doctrine, screwing over your tools, so you can't get off the ground in 2012."

You are partly true about number one. Not everyone listens to radio hosts like they watch radio. Fox can only do soo much, but a lot of ppl still watch CBS, ABC, CNN and etc. That still creates a problem.

The Fairness Doctrine will never pass (thank god). Whether they like it or not, it would be infringing on our freedom of speech. It would be constitutinally illegal to say that if you have one point of view on for X hours, you have to have opposite point of view on for same hours. That is blocking freedom of speech and they cannot do it.

"That requires a good number of assumptions:
1: Obama would screw up everyone.  Or, at the very least, a good enough cross-section of the nation in key voting states.
2: The effects would be large enough to be visible to the everyday person, unaided by the media.
3: The negative effects would have to be felt by the time the 2012 election hits.
4: The negative effects would have to outweigh all possible potential future gains that could be claimed by the media ("Sure, the deficit is higher than ever, but this is needed for long term economic growth.  What?  No economic growth yet?  Remember, good economic policies take time to become good.")
5: There would have to be absolutely no other future issues on the ballot.  ("Sure, the deficit is enormous right now as a result of Obama.  But let's not look to the past.  Event X has happened, and we need to judge this election based on who can handle future events, not past events.")
6: The negative effects would have to be universal.  ("Sure, you're feeling the effects of this slowing economy.  But don't think of yourself.  Think of person X who did benefit as a result of this policy.  Don't you feel good that you're helping person X?"  Note: Person X only has to really be a hypothetical person, really, in order to allow people to achieve a feel-good state from their own sacrifice.)
7: Oh, and let's not forget that Obama could rig up election rules, establish the Fairness Doctrine, or do any number of things that result in shutting down the 2012 backlash.
8: Oh, and you're also assuming that the US can survive 4 years of failed policy and still walk out alive."

I am making the assumption that his screw ups would be noticeable right away, as they likely would be. Healthcare and other entitlement programs would go over budget within a year, and their would be no hiding it.

"Question: Who do you prefer: Obama or McCain?  Don't answer this from a strategic political perspective (the "Obama destroys liberalism" side).  Just based on what each person stands for, along with their personalities or any other characteristics of the candidate, who do you prefer?"

I of course prefer McCain. He is certainly better than Obama or any other dem they could try to put in the white house.

Of course you then run the risk of Obama being a good president and having the Democrats winning again in 2012.

@ARFeh

We're assuming, for the time being, that Obama will be bad.  Consider this a GOP strategy meeting. 

Will respond to everything else in the morning...

I don't see how Obama can be so bad as to ruin the USA forever AND not be so bad as to be obviously toast in 2012.  But then, I have a living memory of the Carter years.

It's going to get bad.  They warned us this was coming when we dropped the gold standard, but it took 35 years and a competing cabal of industrialized nations with their own currency to burst the bubble.

Arfeh
GOP = Grand Old Party = Republicans

@noir
You have to replace one obama.

@toppic:
You need a second "republican" party if the other screws up. Same for the dems party. The competition will do much good I think.

> BC Teufelshund (DevilDog) wrote:

> "You are wrong there. If McCain wins, it will not be the Republicans that give him the victory. It will be the independents. He is gonna lose A LOT of votes from his base due to his liberal ideas, but the independents will overwhelmingly fix that deficit. They will not however do the same for the house and senate. Two different beasts when it comes to them voting. If we had that chance, it would have happened in 2006."

Answering this below:

"You are partly true about number one. Not everyone listens to radio hosts like they watch radio. Fox can only do soo much, but a lot of ppl still watch CBS, ABC, CNN and etc. That still creates a problem."

Alright, then.  You don't change what people watch, only the content they're watching.  Which brings me to my 8 point list below.  If the media can run any positive spin for Obama or any negative spin for McCain whatsoever, your strategy fails anyway.

"The Fairness Doctrine will never pass (thank god). Whether they like it or not, it would be infringing on our freedom of speech. It would be constitutinally illegal to say that if you have one point of view on for X hours, you have to have opposite point of view on for same hours. That is blocking freedom of speech and they cannot do it."

1: In particular on the Fairness Doctrine, I'll give you this one.  I just did a little research on it to discover that it actually did have constitutionality rulings against it in the past.  However, just a note: just like in economics, past performance in the Supreme Court is no indication of future performance.  Obama would have a shot at picking Supreme Court justices, slanting the court in his favor.  Each justice he picks puts us one step closer to the Fairness Doctrine being passed.  It's a long shot, but it's not outside the realm of possibility.
2: However, you still didn't answer that the Dems could establish rules to favor the Democrats in the 2012 election.  A little gerrymandering of districts and the GOP could be locked out of the House.  With some creative campaign financing laws, Democrats could easily take away key Republican advantages.  Even if talk radio remains a powerful entity, it can't overcome both competitive media with liberal slant and inherently biased rules in the election.  This could only really be stopped if Republicans hold either the House, Senate, or the Presidency.

Me:
"That requires a good number of assumptions:
1: Obama would screw up everyone.  Or, at the very least, a good enough cross-section of the nation in key voting states.
2: The effects would be large enough to be visible to the everyday person, unaided by the media.
3: The negative effects would have to be felt by the time the 2012 election hits.
4: The negative effects would have to outweigh all possible potential future gains that could be claimed by the media ("Sure, the deficit is higher than ever, but this is needed for long term economic growth.  What?  No economic growth yet?  Remember, good economic policies take time to become good.")
5: There would have to be absolutely no other future issues on the ballot.  ("Sure, the deficit is enormous right now as a result of Obama.  But let's not look to the past.  Event X has happened, and we need to judge this election based on who can handle future events, not past events.")
6: The negative effects would have to be universal.  ("Sure, you're feeling the effects of this slowing economy.  But don't think of yourself.  Think of person X who did benefit as a result of this policy.  Don't you feel good that you're helping person X?"  Note: Person X only has to really be a hypothetical person, really, in order to allow people to achieve a feel-good state from their own sacrifice.)
7: Oh, and let's not forget that Obama could rig up election rules, establish the Fairness Doctrine, or do any number of things that result in shutting down the 2012 backlash.
8: Oh, and you're also assuming that the US can survive 4 years of failed policy and still walk out alive."

DD:
"I am making the assumption that his screw ups would be noticeable right away, as they likely would be. Healthcare and other entitlement programs would go over budget within a year, and their would be no hiding it."

That answers one of the arguments I made above, #3.  And, frankly, it's still answerable.  Deficits aren't an overwhelming issue right now, so why should they be so in 2012?  If the result of the programs being over budget is higher taxes, the media could positively spin it by saying the high taxes and poor economy are only a transition phase.

Regardless, you didn't answer 7 of the above arguments, which combine to shoot your whole theory to hell.

"I of course prefer McCain. He is certainly better than Obama or any other dem they could try to put in the white house."

I knew where I was going with this... but screw it.  It's not worth even typing out, because, at best, it's an individual value, rather than a universal value. 

@TheYell

Let me paint you a scenario for this US fall.  No, I'm not going to even use terrorism, Iran, or any foreign invasion.

1: Obama comes into office.
2: Obama passes his health care program, raising taxes on businesses.
3: Businesses lose discretionary spending, which cuts into their R&D programs.

Now, what's so special about these R&D programs?  Right now, we're on the verge of breakthroughs on a number of technologies, all of which are quite important for the future economy and military of any nation developing it.  Biotechnology, computer software development, nanotechnology... only a couple of the important technologies being advanced right now.  If you like, I could write a post specifically dedicated to one of these technologies, or you could just accept that future technologies are really really important.  Essentially, we're on the verge of a huge technological breakthrough, in which the first one to achieve these technologies becomes the dominant power in economics.  If we screw up for 4 years, we're left behind.

@Einstein

My 7 point list answers this.  Either you have to overcome an inherently biased media of immense power that will screw you up anyway, or talk radio would be able to force the GOP into supporting conservative candidates anyway.  My personal theory stands for the former anyway.

zarf, i didn't answer all points as I was about to go to bed. I am at work on my cell now so it would take too long, but once I get home, I will answer (or try to) all of them.

@TheYell

That's still only a minimal tax increase.  Nothing compared to Obama.
As for reaching out to Democrats, let's face it: He might reach out on littler issues, but a universal health care program would be utter political suicide for a Republican, regardless of whether he is a moderate Republican.  Universal health care is the big tax increase issue we're looking at for 2008.  Slight tax increases are bad, but adaptable.  Huge tax increases hurt the US not only by the merit of taxation but through the Wall Street response to the lack of stability in the next four years.

@DD

Okay, sorry for the confusion.  Take your time. 

2. MIlitary power and oversees war"

that's a proper function of government.  the others aren't.

"That's still only a minimal tax increase.  Nothing compared to Obama.
As for reaching out to Democrats, let's face it: He might reach out on littler issues...Slight tax increases are bad,but adaptable."

Fine, dump McCain and let's nominate an open liberal instead of a fake conservative

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> @Noir

Wars are temporary.  Health care would be a permanent thing, especially since once a major government institution is created, its own policies make it extremely difficult to later end that program if we later realize the program is stupid.

So you'd rather have a good ol' war for no good reason instead of tyring to create a national health care system which can provide for your population because "a war is temporary"? I'm guessing you find it amusing when people say they're on the K-Y jelly plan getting it up the you-know-where then. Because that's what happens to everyone who can't afford insurances or propper care of any kind. No wonder blacks and latinos are regular Democrats constituencies.

Come to think of it: DD, Zarf, Yell, Little Paul, Justinian: are you all white with decent incomes? Because you sure as hell sound like it. Biggots? Hmmm.

Even though I tend to agree that self-accomplishment is the best way to run a life and a society, you have to do it on balanced terms unless you want riots on your hands. And trust me, the World and the USA aren't exactly balanced atm.

Oh btw, if you guys are so keen on wars and democracy, take a trip to Zimbabwe and dethrone Mugabe. I don't know much about economics, but I think a 1000% inflation rate isn't good.

Zarf the lack of healt care is very permanent for thoose who does not get the threatment they need ..

And history shows that US involvment in overseas wars isnt very temporary either...

"white with decent incomes? Because you sure as hell sound like it. Biggots?"

White and middle class makes you a biggot? Do you see the fault in your statement?

@Zarf

In your scenario, wouldn't tax increases be one of the things that can be immediately felt?