Polar Bear Phan wrote:Despite the construct of our electoral system and its inherent tendency for two party rule, I'll go out on limb and predict that a center-right political independent will be POTUS on January 20, 2013.

Polar Bear Phan wrote:Despite the construct of our electoral system and its inherent tendency for two party rule, I'll go out on limb and predict that a center-right political independent will be POTUS on January 20, 2013.

TenuredVulture wrote:I've come up with a small shred of solace for Dems regarding NY-09: It's a pretty atypical congressional district, and thus not a good place to discern national trends. Admittedly, it's not much.

dajafi wrote:Perry has said at least one thing I think I agree with: that he's no more interested in being governed by someone from Massachusetts than most folks there probably are in being ruled by Texans.

Given the geographical/ideological sorting of the country, I'm wondering whether the current setup even makes sense anymore and if we'd be better off in some kind of federated system. Keep one currency and one military, but pretty much everything else--education, infrastructure, trade, laws, social services/safety net, corrections, etc--devolves to groupings of states: New England, Midlantic, Gulfland, Dixie, Pacifica... everyone gets a delegate to some kind of national council that decides use of force and other tie-breaker questions, resolves trade disputes, etc.

The Tea Party folks in theory would love it, because it severely de-emphasizes Washington. Liberals would like it because we could actually have a functional polity where we can invest in people and things get done. You probably have less war because the political costs of going are higher and there's no president who can unilaterally assert himself by swinging his junk around. You get smaller government closer to the ground.

dajafi wrote:I agree--question is how it would happen. I'd rather we choose, and keep in common the things that make sense (military, currency), than have it come about through conflict.

dajafi wrote:I agree--question is how it would happen. I'd rather we choose, and keep in common the things that make sense (military, currency), than have it come about through conflict.

Swiggers wrote:

dajafi wrote:I agree--question is how it would happen. I'd rather we choose, and keep in common the things that make sense (military, currency), than have it come about through conflict.

There is a model for how to do this -- the EU. They don't have the military obligations that we do, but in 100 years we might not, either, if we've ceased being the world's policeman.

Swiggers wrote:

dajafi wrote:I agree--question is how it would happen. I'd rather we choose, and keep in common the things that make sense (military, currency), than have it come about through conflict.

There is a model for how to do this -- the EU. They don't have the military obligations that we do, but in 100 years we might not, either, if we've ceased being the world's policeman.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Swiggers wrote:

dajafi wrote:I agree--question is how it would happen. I'd rather we choose, and keep in common the things that make sense (military, currency), than have it come about through conflict.

There is a model for how to do this -- the EU. They don't have the military obligations that we do, but in 100 years we might not, either, if we've ceased being the world's policeman.

Can we use a model that isn't already falling apart after a decade and a half?

jerseyhoya wrote:

Swiggers wrote:

dajafi wrote:I agree--question is how it would happen. I'd rather we choose, and keep in common the things that make sense (military, currency), than have it come about through conflict.

There is a model for how to do this -- the EU. They don't have the military obligations that we do, but in 100 years we might not, either, if we've ceased being the world's policeman.

Can we use a model that isn't already falling apart after a decade and a half?

Squire wrote:I saw like every episode of Jericho so I'm ready.