Will 2016 Be a Pivotal Election?

Yes, 2016 -- not 2012. At least, more so than 2012. Is that possible?

Many observers have written that the 2012 election will be one of the most pivotal in history, and it's natural to assume that is so. Indeed, it's expected to be very close, and voters get to choose between what appear to be two dramatically different visions for the nation.

But I believe that whoever is elected will be constrained by reality, and will be singularly unable to impose an agenda that carries his vision very far toward fruition. In fact, I think the White House is now sort of like a hot potato, and that partisans on both sides better be careful what they wish for.

If Obama is re-elected, he will likely not be able to do much of anything. Republicans will almost certainly retain the House, and will have enough votes in the Senate to block anything of consequence. Therefore, Obama will be reduced to "nibbling-around-the-edges" sorts of stuff, such as continuing to press for something like the "Buffett Rule." He can hardly go five minutes without talking about the need for tax increases on the "wealthy" -- yet when pressed hard on the issue, he folds or uses the acceptance of continuing the tax cuts as a bargaining chip to trade for something else. I suppose he hopes people won't notice that it wouldn't make much difference in the size of the deficit.

Additionally, Republicans would probably win a few more seats in the 2014 election. The party that does not hold the White House usually does well in the midterms, especially if the economy is not doing very well. And Republicans could conceivably take the Senate that year as well.

If Romney wins the election, there's no telling what he'll do. Since I think his primary agenda is Mitt Romney becoming (and staying) president, I think he'll do whatever he deems politically expedient. In other words, I don't think he'll be any more likely than Obama to make tough decisions on taxes, the deficit, financial reform, or much of anything else.

Now we're facing what is commonly referred to as the "fiscal cliff" -- in other words, a planned combination (if Congress doesn't do anything about it) of spending cuts and tax cut expirations totalling about $600 billion. Most analysts believe that going off the "fiscal cliff" would plunge our very weak economy back into a recession.

But the deficit is double that size! True, we don't need to eliminate it all in one fell swoop, but we will at least need to reduce it gradually over the next few years.

However, that will take leadership and tough decision-making. Obama obviously has no interest in offering any such thing. But nothing I've seen suggests that Romney has, either. If so, he will have to concede right from the beginning that he's willing to be a one-term president. Prudent, responsible decisions will not be popular.

So it seems to me that an election victory -- by either party -- may soon look like a Pyrrhic victory indeed. We have a developing crisis with which we must deal, and neither candidate is equal to the task. Soon it may be widely realized that we need a real reform candidate to clean up a huge mess that was many years in the making, not just more nice speeches and a lot of happy talk from ambitious politicians.

Perhaps we will soon see a 21st century version of Ross Perot, but tougher and ready for a much bigger challenge than the one we faced twenty years ago.

Or maybe we will muddle through and slowly return to normalcy with no financial or fiscal crises. That's not the way I'd bet, though.

I guess all the people are waiting for the Cliff Notes Version of your tome before deciding on how or even if we should respond.

You ever speak English to regular folk, stranger?

You project too dark a scenario for me to buy in.

It sounds like a version of Mad Max and that is as pessimistic as you can get.

. . . Lighten up, pal. President Obama will be re-elected and it's all going to BE ALL good!

I totally agree wil you Captain. Let's all look back on this post in the next 2 and then 4 years.

I do not think there will ever be a third party though. Well not totally it seems!

Read , The Believing Brain , there is a chapter on that very subject.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...569887724.html

Sorry, but I am on board with Captain M.

I've said a number of times that I don't care for either candidate and I find it simultaneously amusing and frightening that so many die-hards on the left and right think their guy has all the answers.

I think the economy will drag along in a slow recovery. But I am afraid we may slide back into another recession. We cannot keep stimulating our way out of it.

I used to think Republicans could control spending, but GWB killed off that idea, at least for now. Dems love to spend, but at least they will raise taxes to at least partially cover the spending. But Bush replaced tax and spend with borrow and spend.

We are being, and will continue to be, crushed by entitlement spending. You could cut defense by 70% and we will still run a deficit.

Neither party has the backbone to slash entitlements and take their lumps as the polls the next time around.

Read this article by George Will:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/col...3#.UI3z0YWUi9U

It is a review of Nicholas Eberstadt's book "A Nation of Takers: America’s Entitlement Epidemic.”

The disability entitlement scam is particularly galling.

. But Bush replaced tax and spend with borrow and spend.

. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Ronnie gave the false impression thats that was what one could do. He overhauled the Social system and then took the surplus and spent it on the military. The following Presidents did the same thing , though you could argue Clinto got a Peace dividend and Bush Sr got kicked out of office when he correctly tried to raise taxes.

So while it is not really Ronnie's fault, it is the Reagan myth that is at the heart of the problem.

Cap'n M is right, as usual. However, it's not the differences that bother, it's where they agree. The Democrats and Republicans will always agree to limit liberty. That's why we still have the Patriot Act and the NDAA.

Fully agree with CaptainMidnight. That's why I have zero interest in either Romney or Obama winning. If Romney wins, the Democrats will want him to fail and to make him a one term President. If Obama wins, the Republicans will start campaigning as soon as the election is over and won't have any interest in getting anything done.

Cap'n M is right, as usual. However, it's not the differences that bother, it's where they agree. The Democrats and Republicans will always agree to limit liberty. That's why we still have the Patriot Act and the NDAA. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

WWSMD?

But what would the Spider Monkey sitting at the top of the intelligence tree do?



CM, in our form of government nothing gets done unless there is a crisis or precieved crisis. The only fix that is politically possible is the Reagan fix and that is really a three card monty. To fix SS and Medicare just means that government can go on spending and leave those programs IOU's. Is that really a fix? Did Reagan really fix SS and Medicare?

That is the question that needs to be asked, IMHO , of course.

Good post Cap'n neither of the clowns running this time have what it takes to pull us out of the nose dive, Romney may slow it down some, O would only accelerate it.

I know we've talked about this and disagree, but I still think gridlock may be the best we can do, certainly if it had been sufficient to stop TARP, CARP and Socialist Healthcare it would have been better.

A weak and biased analysis that assumes Romney will do nothing because he is only interested in being President; but assumes Obama will be unable to accomplish anything because of Republican entrenchment. Note blame Romney in one scenario and blame Republicans in the other......phony and biased.


Here is better (and more accurate ) spin....

Romney wins, he will try to balance the budget and create jobs thru a combination of tax cuts and regulatory reforms.

Obama wins, he will do nothing but the same he has done for the past four years.

Final analysis, change of leadership gives America a chance to survive a little longer (maybe get it right); re-elect Obama and our future's fate is sealed soon rather than later.

A weak and biased analysis that assumes Romney will do nothing because he is only interested in being President; but assumes Obama will be unable to accomplish anything because of Republican entrenchment. Note blame Romney in one scenario and blame Republicans in the other......phony and biased.


Here is better (and more accurate ) spin....

Romney wins, he will try to balance the budget and create jobs thru a combination of tax cuts and regulatory reforms.

Obama wins, he will do nothing but the same he has done for the past four years.

Final analysis, change of leadership gives America a chance to survive a little longer; re-elect Obama and our future's fate is sealed soon rather than laer. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

If you think CM is biased towards the Obama camp, you must be the Head of, ''Assessment of Defense Forces needed in Libya'', prior 9/11

CM thinks it's ok for international observers to monitor our elections......

Yes, I think his "analysis" is biased; but likely more to stupidity than Obama..................he shows his stupidity because he thinks Romney doesn't have any economic reform proposals, just political expediency..fact is Romney has been very specific about what his immediate agenda will be.

I do agree (somewhat) with the thread title; just NOT his subsequent analysis.

If you think CM is biased towards the Obama camp, you must be the Head of, ''Assessment of Defense Forces needed in Libya'', prior 9/11 Originally Posted by WTF

LOL!

For the record, I believe I am right-of-center on the political spectrum, at least on economic issues, but probably a bleeding heart liberal compared to Whirlaway and a few others on this board. And I think Obama is one of the half-dozen worst presidents of the last hundred years. In my view, his record of extreme fiscal irresponsibility solidly cements that status. By the way, I hold the same view of George W. Bush.

CM, in our form of government nothing gets done unless there is a crisis or precieved crisis. The only fix that is politically possible is the Reagan fix and that is really a three card monty. To fix SS and Medicare just means that government can go on spending and leave those programs IOU's. Is that really a fix? Did Reagan really fix SS and Medicare? Originally Posted by WTF

I agree with you that nothing is likely to get done absent a perceived crisis. Today's biggest problem, as I see it, is that a very large and growing number of voters see themselves as beneficiaries of a metastasizing social welfare/entitlement state, rather than contributors to it. The article linked by ExNYer makes a number of excellent points in that regard. As to the second part of your statement, I assume you are referring to the "Greenspan commission" of the early 1980s, which recommended a long-term "fix" to the accounting fiction that answers to the name of the Social Security "trust fund." But the "adjustment" paled in comparison to the income tax cuts during the 1980s, so deficits quickly became a concern, even if you looked only at the "unified budget" number, which we first started doing in the late 1960s. That's not a politically practicable "fix" today, since it would overtly raise the payroll tax.

CM thinks it's ok for international observers to monitor our elections..... Originally Posted by Whirlaway

What?!?

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=585556

Check out post numbers 27, 29, and 32. Obviously, you claimed that I said the opposite of what I really said. Try to pay better attention next time and perhaps you'll look less foolish.

Romney wins, he will try to balance the budget and create jobs thru a combination of tax cuts and regulatory reforms. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

You're kidding, right? We've been cutting taxes aggressively for many years, and all the while increasing spending at a very rapid rate -- elevating total federal spending to nearly 25% of GDP. How do you think we're going to cut taxes further and balance the budget? That's disingenuous demagoguery of the highest order. If you really think Romney is going to do that, you're living in a fantasy world. If he even makes any serious effort to do so, he and dozens of other Republicans will be landslided out of office the first time voters get to impose their collective will.

Yes, I think his "analysis" is biased; but likely more to stupidity than Obama..................he shows his stupidity because he thinks Romney doesn't have any economic reform proposals, just political expediency..fact is Romney has been very specific about what his immediate agenda will be. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Romney's economic "reform" proposals are neither politically practicable nor sustainable. And for that matter, he has failed to specify tax loopholes and exclusions he would close in return for dropping rates 20% across-the-board. The numbers don't add up. Anyone who isn't suffering from ignorance, innumeracy, or blind partisan bias realizes that.

Sorry, Whirlaway, but I don't suffer fools gladly. I suggest that you learn something about this issue before popping off again.

One good place to start would be this thread, including the link I posted:

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=576357

Here's another:

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=565051

Remove the partisan blinders and engage in critical thinking for a change.

By the way, it's always wise to be sure you have some idea of what you're talking about before gratuitously insulting someone's intelligence!

I tend to have skepticism on whether Romney will have the balls to do what is necessary. If he does not he will lose in 2016 and whoever wins will be facing an even more difficult problem. The only reason I am voting for him is that I KNOW Obama will do the wrong thing.

As for tax cuts we do not need any. However, tax reform that stimulates economic activity we need badly. Things like cutting business taxes sound like gifts to the rich but they would help keep businesses in the US and incentivize investment here. That sounds like and is easy to claim in sound bites as a gift to the rich but it should actually increase revenues to the government.

@ CM; I must have mis-read one of your posts...you clearly think foreign election monitors is a bad and unnecessary idea..............I stand corrected. And you're right, your politics are right of center as best I can tell..

That said, I think your original analysis is both wrong and slanted.

Romney will cut spending; I have no doubt about it.......he has said in interviews that if he is a one term president so be it, he intends to cut spending, reform entitlements, restructure the tax code, lower taxes and work to a balanced budget.