Barack Obama's Many Majorities

posted by John Nichols on 11/05/2008 @ 05:00am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (90)

Subscribe Now

"If I should need to name, O Western World, your powerfulest scene and show," wrote the poet Walt Whitman on the occasion of a distant election, "I'd name the still-small voice vibrating – America's choosing day."

On this day after voting day, as Whitman's "final ballot-shower from East to West" finishes, we are reminded once more that an American election, aggressively campaigned and well conducted, yields not the measure of men or parties, but of the country itself. Despite all the talk of spin, strategy, polls and personalities, an election ultimately tells us what America can conceive, what it is capable of, what indeed it demands.

The demand at the start of the 2008 presidential campaign was for change.

Americans wanted an end to a war that should never have started, they wanted an end to economic policies that were widening the gap between rich and poor and pushing the middle-class into the yawning chasm between, they wanted to replace a president who been dubiously elected with one who had secured the trust of the great mass of Americans.

A unreasonably young Illinois senator recognized the demand, and the frustration that underpinned it.

With the most disciplined campaign run by a Democratic contender for the presidency since the days when Jim Farley was organizing Franklin Roosevelt's races, Barack Obama made himself the tribune of America's yearning for a transformational moment.

He was the physical embodiment of change – an African-American contender in a land that had only nominated and elected white men before him.

But it was Obama's message that mattered.

He spoke to America in a language of common purpose that was starkly at odds with the blunt talk of recent elections. Pundits and critics praised and derided Obama's soaring rhetoric, but they tended to miss the fact that from the start of his campaign the senator was not merely speaking – he was saying something.

Something about America.

The Democratic nominee's final statement to the electorate on the eve of the vote distilled his message down to a single line: "I ask you to write our nation's next great chapter."

Note, please, that Obama did not ask voters to empower him to make the change, nor even to help him to achieve it.

"If you give me your vote," he said, "we won't just win this election – together we can change this country and change the world."

And so America, with the audacity of hope, gave Barack Obama its vote.

The scope of Obama's victory is historic not merely because of the change from the preceding demographic of our Oval Office occupants.

It is historic because of the political progress that has been achieved.

Obama did not merely win the presidency.

He won a governing majority that his party has not recently enjoyed.

For the first time in more than a quarter century, a Democrat nominee has won the nation's highest office with a clear majority of the popular vote. a wide margin in the Electoral College and Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.

Here are just some of the measures of Obama's victory:

* He has won the presidency with the highest percentage of the vote attained by any Democrat since Lyndon Johnson's landslide win of 1964.

* He has gained a higher percentage of the popular vote and a higher number of electoral votes than George Bush attained before his post-2004 election declaration that: "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it."

* He will a take office with a dramatically more Democratic Senate and a significantly more Democratic House of Representatives. In the Senate, the majority may not be a filibuster-proof 60, but it will be close enough for a persuasive president to appeal to moderate Republicans.

* He will arrive in Washington with the knowledge that he has disproven the cynics who suggested a majority white nation was incapable of choosing as its leader an African-American man born not to privilege or prominence but merely to the possibility of the American experiment.

Obama will arrive, as well, at a volatile moment in which he and his country will be greatly challenged. His many majorities give Obama a flexibility that other presidents have lacked -- even Ronald Reagan had to deal with a Democratic House led by Tip O'Neill. But they take from him the excuses that a president can claim when government is divided.

Of course, the central theme of Obama's political progression has been the bridging of division; the notion, expressed first in his remarkable keynote address to the Democratic National Convention of 2004, that: "[There's] not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there's the United States of America. There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America."

That seemed a lovely sentiment in the summer of 2004.

It seems something more real -- or, at the least, possible -- in the fall of 2008.

America still has lines of division. But Obama's many majorities are, in some, the measures of a unity not seen in some time. Obama won with overwhelming support from African Americans (96 percent), Jews (77 percent), gays and lesbians (71 percent), first-time voters (68 percent), Latinos (67 percent), Asians (63 percent), voters under 30 (66 percent), union members (59 percent) and women (55 percent). But, in key battleground states, the Democrat was taking one in 10 votes cast by Republicans, one in five cast by conservatives, one in three cast by evangelical Christians.

Obama was, as well, redrawing that map of red and blue states, winning across every time zone of the continental U.S.: all of New England, the Great Lakes states, three states of the old Confederacy, three states of the southwest and all of west coast.

The map is still red and blue. But the mix is such that it is possible to imagine a blurring toward purple. Impossible? The president-elect would suggest that we think again. "If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy," Obama said in victory, "tonight is your answer."

This is hope made real. And its potential is perhaps greater than even Obama's most ardent supporters dared imagine.

Michelle Obama got in a bit of trouble early in the campaign season, when her husband was beginning to win caucuses and primaries, that for the first time she felt a full measure of pride in America. It was a silly controversy, stirred up to try and portray a woman who was making a patriotic statement as somehow disloyal or worse yet disdainful of America.

The truth is that the pride Americans feel in their country frequently varies depending on historic circumstance. There are times when we feel better about our country, and worse. There are times when we fear our government, and others when we see it as an extension of ourselves.

Election seasons test and measure our relationship with our country. A divided and inconclusive result tells us that the body politic is not prepared for progress. A clear and decisive result suggests that we are prepared to dream anew that patriot's dream, and to go about the work of perfecting it.

Such is the result from the long election night that followed the longest campaign in American history. And as the sun dawns on a new day, it is perhaps a bit easier to hear, as Whitman did, America singing. And to detect a bit of poetry in the words of a young president-elect who tells us: "The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America -- I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you -- we as a people will get there."

Comments (90)

Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 11/05/2008 @ 07:00am

Very gracious, DTT

Posted by Mask at 11/05/2008 @ 07:23am
Congratulations Nation readers. It will be an exciting four years. I look forward to debating the issues during Obama's historic Presidency.

Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 11/05/2008

Thanks D. You are off ignore.

Posted by Truthman at 11/05/2008 @ 07:51am
I can't wait till the people here who wanted to abolish the electoral college now claim a landslide victory because of the electoral college.

Posted by abell12ct at 11/05/2008 @ 08:31am
PRAY FOR OBAMA & PRAY FOR OUR WONDERFUL NATION (NO MATTER WHAT ONE'S SPIRITUAL BELIEFS). LET US FINALLY BURY RACISM AND OVERT GREED. BRING FORWARD SERVICE TO OUR NATION. LET US ALL JUST BE CAPABLE OF SAYING "I AM AN AMERICAN".

DW & CG EHRENBERG

Posted by conservativenotrepubcon at 11/05/2008 @ 08:33am
"Greed is good" Gordon Gekko

Posted by abell12ct at 11/05/2008 @ 08:41am
The far-right Republican Base response to the Obama victory

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ_Sqj7JUn8

Posted by leftofcenter at 11/05/2008 @ 09:41am
Just as the Reagan Revolution was a repudiation of the 60s, Obama's win hopefully brings to an end the political and cultural gridlock of 28 years of that revolution.

Unfortunately, I don't believe it's the end of the so-called culture wars. The deep cultural and ideological divides that marked the campaigns won't evaporate overnight.

In the absence of a solid economy and in the wake of the pillaging by the Bush administration of the Federal coffers, it's hard to see how Obama will have the tools to create a new America.

But I still have HOPE.

Posted by jackwells at 11/05/2008 @ 09:50am
We all shed tears watching Mr. Obama's acceptance speech last night. It's about time. I hope, against history, that this man will help us break up the political corruption that has destroyed the dream for so many. Today we are celebrating, beginning January we will watch carefully...

Posted by longshot at 11/05/2008 @ 09:52am
We all shed tears watching Mr. Obama's acceptance speech last night

Posted by longshot

Not all shed tears for the same reason. Me? I was watching a repeat of South Park.

Posted by abell12ct at 11/05/2008 @ 09:56am
Posted by jackwells at 11/05/2008 @ 09:50am

Heard last night party affiliation has completely flipped since the 80s.

More people saying they are Democrats than Republicans since before Reagan.

Posted by Mask at 11/05/2008 @ 10:20am
More people saying they are Democrats than Republicans since before Reagan. Posted by Mask at 11/05/2008 @ 10:20am

I hope you're right, Mask, I really do hope so.

BTW, I really misread Florida. Hair pie coming up later.

Posted by jackwells at 11/05/2008 @ 10:28am
Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 11/05/2008 @ 07:00am

Very gracious, DTT

Posted by Mask at 11/05/2008 @ 07:23am

I agree.

I also thought McCain was very gracious in defeat - unlike a small if vocal number of his supporters - as Obama was in victory.

By the way, did anyone else pick up on Obama's riffs off of Martin Luther King's speech the night before he was assassinated? Brilliantly done, although the repeated use of the pedestrian phrase, "Yes, we can" knocked the speech down a few notches in my estimation (probably William Safire's, too).

Quintessential image of last night: Jesse Jackson in tears with his finger held to his lips. Very moving, even if I did have to crack a joke to myself that he was crying because "It should have been me!" He was the last Democrat I ever voted for above the School Board level.

Posted by cka2nd at 11/05/2008 @ 10:34am
Congratulations Nation readers. It will be an exciting four years. I look forward to debating the issues during Obama's historic Presidency.

Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 11/05/2008 @ 07:00am | ignore this person | warn this person

Back at ya Darin. Stick around. This will becoma a very boring place indeed if we don't have our contrarians showing up here to point out the error of ways.

Posted by OneVote at 11/05/2008 @ 11:00am
Posted by OneVote at 11/05/2008 @ 11:00am

Believe us OV, we're gonna have some fun with you guys. My eldest son left his frat paddles behind and I intend to use them.... :-)

Posted by ACook at 11/05/2008 @ 11:09am
Funny, the word "mandate". Obama certainly has one! Bush claimed to have one in '04, and the allegedly liberally biased mainstream media backed him up 100%. Will they give the new president his due?

Posted by mcrave at 11/05/2008 @ 11:15am
Believe us OV, we're gonna have some fun with you guys. My eldest son left his frat paddles behind and I intend to use them.... :-)

Posted by ACook at 11/05/2008 @ 11:09am | warn this person

Good! My "behind" is already smarting!

Posted by OneVote at 11/05/2008 @ 11:18am
Now.....how do we get rid of Nancy and Harry? The 2006 Dems don't deserve to stand in Obama's glow.

Posted by OneVote at 11/05/2008 @ 11:21am
Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 11/05/2008 @ 10:02am

This is why I like you Darin. Because no matter how much we disagree you are always at least approachable and can always be appealed to rationally.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/05/2008 @ 11:26am
Now.....how do we get rid of Nancy and Harry? The 2006 Dems don't deserve to stand in Obama's glow. Posted by OneVote at 11/05/2008 @ 11:21am | ignore this person | warn this person

cannibalism.

Posted by emile duBois at 11/05/2008 @ 11:29am
I think conservatives should take heart in the fact that at least in Obama's speech, whether this will hold out I don't know, he asked for the help of the people who didn't vote for him to change this country in a way that will not only be good for his constituents but also for them.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/05/2008 @ 11:30am
cannibalism. Posted by emile duBois at 11/05/2008 @ 11:29a

I heard humans taste of chickens.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/05/2008 @ 11:32am
Posted by cka2nd at 11/05/2008 @ 10:34am

Agreed. DTT showing some class in defeat. (especially strong given his state also threw out Liddy Dole).

Posted by Mask at 11/05/2008 @ 11:38am
cannibalism.

Posted by emile duBois at 11/05/2008 @ 11:29am

Harry would need a marinade.

Posted by Truthman at 11/05/2008 @ 11:40am
Posted by Mask at 11/05/2008 @ 11:38am

See...and you thought we conservatives didn't know how to lose graciously.

Posted by ACook at 11/05/2008 @ 12:18pm
cannibalism.

Posted by emile duBois at 11/05/2008 @ 11:29am | ignore this person | warn this person

A taxonomy that I am sure the old entrenched Dem guard will be exploiting. More discerning hunters here will classify them as "fair game."

Posted by OneVote at 11/05/2008 @ 12:21pm
See...and you thought we conservatives didn't know how to lose graciously. Posted by ACook at 11/05/2008 @ 12:18pm

McCain proved last night you could. We saw a return to the old McCain last night which was nice.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/05/2008 @ 12:27pm
Congratulations to all Nation readers on the election of Barack Obama, I was sure the US would never elect a Socialist President, but you did it!

Now, when does he start making my mortgage payment and filling my car with gas like that Obama voter on utube was sure he'd do? My mortgage is due this week you know.

Posted by pontificus at 11/05/2008 @ 12:57pm
Here's to the advent of a freehold citizenry, arrived at with compassion & an absence of exploitation.

Posted by Sorelish at 11/05/2008 @ 1:00pm
Posted by Mask at 11/05/2008 @ 11:38am

Hey MASK! We's all rich now! Think of all that free money that Barack will be bringing in with all those higher taxes! Can't wait for my check! Vote for Barack, get a check! Catchy!

In a vote of confidence, the stock market promptly tanked 300 points upon Obama's election. Hey, didn't they hear about all that free money coming in? What's the matter with them!

Also, Russia promptly announced they were deploying missiles in Eastern Europe! This has such a 70's feel to it! Time to go disco dancing again!

Posted by pontificus at 11/05/2008 @ 1:01pm
This is a feel good moment for a lot of folks, as middle aged southern white man myself it feels good that a black Democratic candidate has been elected president, and I'm sure many others feel good for similar reasons -besides seeing an end to a amoral administration, and the -at least- temporary defeat of the regressive party of dangerous fools who supported it. Although...

With 47% of the popular vote going to McCain -there is clearly no mandate for Obama -the country is obviously still divided. The majority has only one real mandate in mind, and that is reversing the economic collapse -a mandate that would have fallen on McCain as well as Obama. Also progressives have conveniently blacked out on the fact that the views of both candidates are very close on issues ranging from stoking up the war in Afghanistan (w/Obama going even more hawkish than McCain on military policy toward Pakistan), foreign policy toward the Caucasus and Eastern Europe, defense, the federal bailout, Israel, and so on. The real movement for change will still have to happen outside and independent of both parties.

Posted by Suttree at 11/05/2008 @ 1:09pm
I said it before, and I'll say it again. Sell stocks, and buy gold. Most people with an understanding of economics know that raising taxes and erecting trade barriers in a recession are a guarantee of trouble, thus it's almost certain the Democrats will do both. Good times!

Posted by pontificus at 11/05/2008 @ 1:09pm
Somebody needs to be sure to hold Obama's feet to the fire when he inevitably serves his corporate paymasters at the expense of the "change" he promises. I hope The Nation is willing to do that as they have, to some small extent, with other recent Democrats.

Posted by BurlingameRT at 11/05/2008 @ 1:10pm
to quote pontificus: "I was sure the US would never elect a Socialist President, but you did it!"

I've got some advice for you, it's the same advice right wingers use to give their fellow citizens if they had a critique of some destructive US policy: " Then why don't you move to Russia." If you're really convinced the US is now socialist. They've got something there that economists call cowboy capitalism -it sounds right up your alley.

Posted by Suttree at 11/05/2008 @ 1:29pm
Posted by pontificus at 11/05/2008 @ 1:01pm

Hey, PONTI, you know that line that Rush always used to use (back when you guys were the "permanent majority")....

"Liberals can only win if there is bad news. They want America to fail to get their power back!!!!"

Guess who's going to start sounding like the "America-haters who just care about getting their guys back into power" now?

Oh...wait....no, it's "facing reality" when YOUR side does it....right????

heheh

Posted by Mask at 11/05/2008 @ 1:33pm
Posted by Suttree at 11/05/2008 @ 1:29pm

"US is now socialist"

Uh, excuse me, I did NOT say the US was socialist. I said Obama was socialist. And like all socialists, he rose to power by lying about who and what he truly represents, with the MSM eagerly covering for him. The 10 percent of the American vote that actually swings in any given electionm mostly we-behind-the-ears young voters who get suckered all the time in many other venues, has been duped, pure and simple. America has no idea the shit they are in for. It's the second coming of Jimmy Carter, and it won't be pretty.

Posted by pontificus at 11/05/2008 @ 1:36pm
Posted by Mask at 11/05/2008 @ 1:33pm

Liberal Democrats pulled a neat trick in the last election, MASK. The housing bubble was created by the Community Reinvestment Act and Barney Frank and pals, along with low interest rates set by Greenspan (which he has admitted error on). The great trick of the Democrats in this cycle was being largely responsible for the mess, but blaming it all on the Republicans. That, and the eagerness of the youth vote to prove how enlightened they are, put Obama over the top. Special circumstances.

It's bad policies that lead to bad times, now we're going to double down on both. I'm not rooting for it, by any means. Just predicting it. I observe, I don't hope. If socialist policies worked, I'd be a socialist. But they don't. Don't blame the failure of your delusions on me.

Trust me, I'd rather things stay reasonably good. But we'll pay the price for raising taxes and trade barriers, bet on it.

Posted by pontificus at 11/05/2008 @ 1:43pm
Hot damn, they didn't steal THIS one!

I just hope the outgoing POTUS doesn't do something silly like attack Iran before he and his gang are out... would be right in character. Keep your eyes open, folks.

The Senate needs some serious houseclening (no pun intended). I can also think of some quasi-Democratic Senators (Feinstein comes immediately to mind) whom should also be replaced by people who will represent the will of their constituents rather than that of the corporations... the old school needs to be purged of the Dems who have been bowing to King George and his cronies... soon oh soon the light...

Posted by ucnick at 11/05/2008 @ 1:55pm
I said it before, and I'll say it again. Sell stocks, and buy gold. Most people with an understanding of economics know that raising taxes and erecting trade barriers in a recession are a guarantee of trouble, thus it's almost certain the Democrats will do both. Good times!

Posted by pontificus at 11/05/2008 @ 1:09pm | warn this person

Ponti dear....as every good trader knows you buy on the rumor and sell on the news. The day traders have taken control of the market long ago. The sky is not falling. What is encouraging is that investors perceived Obama's election as a strong positive. As they are doing today is locking in profits. It is the name of the game. We need some retrenchment...market was getting a little ahead of itself.

Posted by OneVote at 11/05/2008 @ 2:08pm
Posted by OneVote at 11/05/2008 @ 2:08pm

"What is encouraging is that investors perceived Obama's election as a strong positive."

Got anything to back that up? What profits are they locking up? A dead cat bounce?

Posted by pontificus at 11/05/2008 @ 2:11pm
Got anything to back that up? What profits are they locking up? A dead cat bounce?

Posted by pontificus at 11/05/2008 @ 2:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person

See today's Tech Ticker on Yahoo....they will talk ya down. An 18% rally in the DOW over the last several days. Short term profits. Grab em while you can.

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/

Also check out the daunting mess that Obama faces in trying to clean up the mess left by your brethren.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081105/financial_meltdown.html

Posted by OneVote at 11/05/2008 @ 2:22pm
The housing bubble was created by the Community Reinvestment Act and Barney Frank and pals, along with low interest rates set by Greenspan (which he has admitted error on).

Posted by pontificus at 11/05/2008 @ 1:43pm

Here you go:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081110/dreier_atlas

Posted by Hman23 at 11/05/2008 @ 2:24pm
Posted by pontificus at 11/05/2008 @ 1:43pm

"Nasty, tricksy, hobbitses...they steals it froms us....theiving, false, tricksy!!!"

Posted by Mask at 11/05/2008 @ 2:36pm
Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 11/05/2008 @ 2:03pm

Darin, what's 44 + 22?

Posted by Mask at 11/05/2008 @ 2:37pm
Where is the pompous rightwing airbag "LOVELIBERTY"? His reich of fascist imperialism is OVER. He denied this moment would come. Now it has. Please come out of your cave and face the music of change. Your ideology has been discredited. A new world of progressive values has been born. Amen.

Posted by philbq at 11/05/2008 @ 5:39pm
Posted by pontificus at 11/05/2008 @ 2:11pm

pontificate: –noun 1. the office or term of office of a pontiff. –verb (used without object) 2. to perform the office or duties of a pontiff. 3. to speak in a pompous or dogmatic manner: Did he pontificate about the responsibilities of a good citizen? 4. to serve as a bishop, esp. in a Pontifical Mass.

And just in case you were curious...

pompous: -adjective 1. characterized by an ostentatious display of dignity or importance 2. ostentatiously lofty or high-flown 3. characterized by pomp, stately splendor, or magnificence.

dogmatic: -adjective 1. Relating to, characteristic of, or resulting from dogma. 2. Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.

And, just in case you're even dumber than I think you are:

ostentatious: -adjective 1. intended to attract notice and impress others; 2. (of a display) tawdry or vulgar

Pontificus: So stupid, he doesn't even realize his own chosen username is essentially an insult!!!

LOL!

Posted by TexasFlood at 11/05/2008 @ 6:15pm
Nothing funnier than receiving economics lessons from somebody who has what seems to be NO grasp on American economics.

It's like being taught neurosurgery by a mechanic.

Posted by TexasFlood at 11/05/2008 @ 6:18pm
I wish the "I hate America" talk being exhibited by Pontificus made me angry...

Instead, I'm just laughing at the frothing and the frustration of a marginalized idiot!

Have a nice night!

Posted by TexasFlood at 11/05/2008 @ 6:19pm
Instead, I'm just laughing at the frothing and the frustration of a marginalized idiot! Have a nice night! Posted by TexasFlood at 11/05/2008 @ 6:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person

you clocked that one, babe

Posted by emile duBois at 11/05/2008 @ 6:44pm
Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 11/05/2008 @ 6:42pm

Darin, 2% + 49% is 51%...not 53%.

Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 11/05/2008 @ 6:45pm

Tax cuts are not solely "conservative", despite what Rush and Sean have told you. ACROSS-THE-BOARD tax cuts are linked to it.

BTW, would you consider President Eisenhower a "conservative"?

Posted by Mask at 11/05/2008 @ 8:29pm
Katrina, get your ass down to Washington. He's already talking that centrist stuff. Somebody better set him straight. You can do it.

Posted by bleedingheart at 11/05/2008 @ 8:33pm
Where, oh, where is FRANKGRITS?

LOL

Posted by Mask at 11/05/2008 @ 8:51pm
Found him:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6moYKv9cpc

Not sure which one is Frank though...

Posted by seenile at 11/05/2008 @ 10:30pm
Posted by seenile at 11/05/2008 @ 10:30pm

Oh.

My.

God.

Posted by TexasFlood at 11/05/2008 @ 11:43pm
Oh he's missed alright:

--------------------------

Obama doesn't get the nomination under any scenerio. Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/08/2008 @ 6:22pm

My focus is on winning in Nov. I've had it with republicans. I've stated however that if Obama is the candidate, I will vote for John McCain because I think he would make a better President and because his views lean left. Obama is dirty and I've explained why. Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/08/2008 @ 8:37pm

Posted by winyahn at 11/05/2008 @ 11:54pm
It's the second coming of Jimmy Carter, and it won't be pretty.

Posted by pontificus at 11/05/2008 @ 1:36pm

Ponti, I may have mentioned this before - I'm a socialist of the Social Democratic type (is there any other?). Barack is a centrist and a pragmatist. As a socialist, I have to tell you that I'm glad he's not one - he, unfortunately, couldn't have been nominated, let alone elected President of the United States, at least in 2008, were he a socialist. Do I care about the fact that I'm left of the new President? Not one iota. I mentioned previously that, through yesterday, the only thing that mattered was winning, as a means by which to begin pulling this country out of the right-wing cesspool in which it's been mired these past 8 years. Now, all that matters is that President Obama (does that sound great, or what!) succeed in restoring the middle class, and restoring global respect for this country. Those two things were all but destroyed during this 8 year descent into hell.

As for Jimmy Carter, a truly great man, President Carter was a visionary, and had we listened to him on energy matters, the Middle East would no longer be a place in which our young were sent as cannon fodder to benefit the old and the wealthy.

Posted by jmusolino at 11/06/2008 @ 01:42am
Congratulations Nation readers. It will be an exciting four years. I look forward to debating the issues during Obama's historic Presidency.

Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 11/05/2008 @ 07:00am

Thanks, Darin (and you as well, ACook). It will indeed be a blast to debate issues with you. What an amazing time in which we live!

Posted by jmusolino at 11/06/2008 @ 01:45am
Where, oh, where is FRANKGRITS?

LOL

Posted by Mask at 11/05/2008 @ 8:51pm

Speaking of old names, how'd you get the old one back???

Posted by yutsano at 11/06/2008 @ 01:48am
Nichols writes:

<<< He has secured not just a victory, but the ability to govern boldly. >>>

His impressive majorities have also given Obama the ability to govern badly.

The breaks provided by a competitive opposition party has saved many an administration from committing great folly.

Those breaks are now absent.

Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/06/2008 @ 03:51am
Those are some returns. Hail to the Chief …

All class, that man.

GOP elders meet today to discuss the party's inner chaos & power vacuum.

Not present in person, but surely in spirit, will be the NY billionaire now trying to buy himself a 3rd mayoral term.

Nature abhors a vacuum.

And money is the mother's milk of politics.

Watch your back, Pres. Obama, the ‘12 long knives are out for you in NYC, praying you sink in the quicksands of Iraq & Afghanistan.

Shakespearean.

Posted by sloper at 11/06/2008 @ 05:53am
Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 11/06/2008 @ 08:52am

You mean Gingrich and his NOW third wife were doing?

Posted by Maskdelta at 11/06/2008 @ 09:41am
Posted by yutsano at 11/06/2008 @ 01:48am

Reckoned they fixed the bug.

Now if Joan Goodall could cut out the "out-skipping" after you post (back to Main Page)!

Posted by Maskdelta at 11/06/2008 @ 09:42am
Conservative? I wouldn't even consider him a Republican. He was bonin' his secretary. If that doesn't make him a Democrat I don't know what would. ;-)

Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 11/06/2008 @ 08:52am | ignore this person | warn this person

I wouldn't consider him a Republican either. He ended a dumb war in Korea (albeit begun by a Dem-Truman), reduced military expenditures (his aversion to the MIC?), expanded Social Security retirement benefits, initiated massive public works/infrastructure projects (Interstate Highways and St. Lawrence Seaway), aided in the removal of a fear-mongering demagogue from his own party (McCarthy), created NASA in '58, created created the Civil Rights commission and a civil rights division at Justice, appointed 5 justices to the Supreme Court that helped create the myth of the "Activist Judges" by supporting civil rights (Warren, Harlan, Brennan, Whittaker and Stewart), fought for a balanced budget, and presided over a vast economic expansion of the middle class eventhough GDP only rose 2.5% during his two terms (redistribution of wealth?). Eisenhower made plenty of mistakes, as all leaders do, but, all in all he did not look anything like the current crop of Republicans.

Posted by BizarroRio at 11/06/2008 @ 09:45am
Posted by BizarroRio at 11/06/2008 @ 09:45am

And apparently America was a "living hell" in the 1950s now, according to the Right. (Whereas they longed to return to them just a few years ago)...

remember, top marginal income tax rates were in the 80s!!!!!!! percentiles and we were still imposing tariffs.

Posted by Maskdelta at 11/06/2008 @ 10:03am
Pobtificus, yes, ponti, your prognostications are always accurate.

Ponti is to accurate as Bush is to success.

Do you know what really killed it for McCain, aside from his pick of JEfferson Davis Palin? It was McCains links to a Palestinian terrorist/elitist professor/communist!!!!

Buwhahahahaa.

That and the fact that the guy you voted for in 2000 and 2004 gave out more "socialism" than Obama could ever dream of.

Don't you just love to say this out loud?

President Barak Hussein Obama.

Posted by crabwalk at 11/06/2008 @ 10:15am
Posted by Maskdelta at 11/06/2008 @ 10:03am | ignore this person | warn this person

Agreed, Eisenhower was being pushed to lower taxes and responded that no taxes could be reduced without a balanced budget!! This probably hepled to contribute to a lackluster overall economy (2.5% increase in GDP over 8 years), however, the push for balanced budgets and massive public works projects contributed to a 20% increase in national incomes. His redistribution of wealth helped expand the middle class to its strongest point of the countries history.

It is often overlooked that he also was no fan of Nixon. Nixon ran in '60 on his 8 years of experience in the Eisenhower Administration. When asked about Nixon's contributions over the previous 8 years, Ike responded "Give me a week and I'll think of something" (SIC). This statement was the "fundamentals of our economy are strong" statement for the Nixon campaign.

Posted by BizarroRio at 11/06/2008 @ 10:21am
"Obama mania was evident not only across Europe but also in much of the Islamic world, where Muslims expressed hope that the Democrat would seek compromise rather than confrontation. The Bush administration alienated Muslims by mistreating [read torturing!] prisons at its detention center for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and inmates at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison -- human rights violations also condemned worldwide."

---

Obama's election unleashed a renewed love for the United States after years of dwindling goodwill, and many said yesterday that U.S. voters had blazed a trail that minorities elsewhere could follow.

People across Africa stayed up all night or woke before dawn to watch U.S. history being made, while the President Mwai Kibaki of Kenya -- where Obama's father was born -- declared today a public holiday. In Indonesia, where Obama lived as child, hundreds of students at his former elementary school erupted in cheers when he was declared winner and poured into the courtyard where they hugged each other, danced in the rain and chanted "Obama! Obama!"

"Your victory has demonstrated that no person anywhere in the world should not dare to dream of wanting to change the world for a better place," South Africa's first black president, Nelson Mandela, said in a letter of congratulations to Obama.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Obama's victory "has raised enormous hope" in Europe

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said her country had been impressed by Mr Obama's "commitment to the peace and security of Israel", while outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the US-Israeli "special relationship" would be "strengthened" under Obama.

Posted by crabwalk at 11/06/2008 @ 10:22am
Governments in South Asia have given a warm reaction to Obama's victory in the US presidential election.

Indian PM Manmohan Singh congratulated the US president-elect on his "extraordinary" triumph and said that ties would grow even stronger

In Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai applauded the American people "for their great decision".

----Businessday.com

OTTAWA - World leaders praised Barack Obama for his decisive victory in the U.S. election on Tuesday night, which sowed optimism around the globe over the prospects of improved relations with the U.S.

----

Across the globe, people in city squares and villages, living rooms and shacks cheered his success, boosting hopes that America's first black commander-in-chief might herald a more conciliatory approach to the rest of the world.

another African-American, Colin Powell said he wept as he watched Obama deliver his victory speech in Chicago's Grant Park.

Powell, in an interview with CNN in Hong Kong, said he believed Obama had the potential to be a great president and asked Americans -- including Republicans -- to get behind Obama.

In a Japanese town bearing Obama's name, jubilation took a few minutes to translate from the group of American teachers to the local crowd, which also cheered "O-ba-ma!" CNN's Kyung Lah reported.

Afghan president Hamid Karzai said the American people have taken "themselves ... and the rest of the world into a new era, the era where race, color and ethnicity ... will also disappear as a factor in politics in the rest of the world."

Posted by crabwalk at 11/06/2008 @ 10:33am
So, it sure looks like America, and the majority of the world, has given the Bush Doctrines the finger. Most of the world has recognized how destructive his policies have been. They have noted that we need to move in a better direction, that the US can be a force for positive change.

Except for the neo-cons and assorted scared sheep like Pontificus who see the world as a threat.

Posted by crabwalk at 11/06/2008 @ 10:39am
WWII income tax rates:

1941- bottom= 10%, top=81%

1942-43- bottom= 19%, top=88%

1944-45, bottom= 23%, top=94%

Korean war avg top rate was 91%!!

Vietnam era- avg top rate was over 70%

Why is it that the cons want to use WWII as the basis for arguing FOR war, but NOT for paying for the war?

I wasn't around during that time, but I think that Americas economy raged in the 50's and early 60's. WITH high income taxes "redistributing" the wealth.

Posted by crabwalk at 11/06/2008 @ 10:46am
crabwalk

remember the howls of derision when I raised this issue a while back?

Posted by emile duBois at 11/06/2008 @ 11:19am
Why is it that the cons want to use WWII as the basis for arguing FOR war, but NOT for paying for the war?

Posted by crabwalk at 11/06/2008 @ 10:46am | ignore this person | warn this person

The fallacy is created when Republicans reference Friedman and Laffer. They found economists that could substantiate the relationship with low taxes and economic expansion. To a point, they are correct. GDP and overall wealth has increased dramatically over the last 30 years of "Reaganomics/Voodoo Economics". What has occurred with relatively low top rate margins is high capital availabilty, which allows the rich to get massively richer, while the lower and middle classes get less and less of the growing pie. The working class has increased productivity exponentially over the last five decades while the income gap has increased and the average income has actually DECREASED under the most conservative tax rates of the last 8 years. A more productive society should clearly have increases in income that are quitable with the increase in productivity.

The top 20% contribute nearly 60% of total tax receipts while they hold nearly 95% of the wealth. In contrast the middle 50% carry nearly all of the remaining burden while holding only 5% of the wealth. The disparity is staggering.

Posted by BizarroRio at 11/06/2008 @ 11:20am
Where, oh, where is FRANKGRITS?

in some dank corner, eating crow.

where is Maasch?

Posted by emile duBois at 11/06/2008 @ 11:23am
Posted by emile duBois at 11/06/2008 @ 11:23am | ignore this person | warn this person

No doubt in the fetal position rocking back and forth crying about Hillary's last chance at the White House evaporating with McCain's loss. Frank is now 0-4 in Presidential candidates for this decade.

Posted by BizarroRio at 11/06/2008 @ 11:30am
Posted by BizarroRio at 11/06/2008 @ 11:30am

FRANK may show back up....later.

Hoping "the heat will have died down and they'll like me again" by January or February.

Posted by Mask at 11/06/2008 @ 11:49am
Hill ran a nasty, ineffective campaign. she will have to work hard to live that down. her presidential possibilities are zero.

Posted by emile duBois at 11/06/2008 @ 3:11pm
Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 11/06/2008 @ 3:13pm | ignore this person | warn this person

DTT,

The Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Brookings Institue and the Urban Institute, is where I get most of my information. They have a publications log with hundreds of papers on tax and income policy. I also get some information from "Making America Work" by Thomas Metzler.

As to corporate taxes- The share of receipts from corporate taxes has been estimated at 15% for the last 15 years. It has been estimated by many at the Tax Policy Center that the top 20% hold roughly 50-60% of corporate assets with Mutual Funds/401k's/Pensions holding the rest. It is hard to determine who holds the stock in publicly traded companies, I have not seen a report that can determine that appropriately.

Posted by BizarroRio at 11/06/2008 @ 4:27pm
Well, McCain did prevail in one sense. He imposed a spending freeze on Palin.

Padadumdum.

Posted by winyahn at 11/06/2008 @ 4:51pm
Darin_the_Troll claims:

<<< The top 20% contribute nearly 60% of total tax receipts while they hold nearly 95% of the wealth. In contrast the middle 50% carry nearly all of the remaining burden while holding only 5% of the wealth. The disparity is staggering. >>>

You are wrong.

* According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the top 40 percen pay 99.1 percent of all income taxes. * The top 10 percent, pay 70.8 percent of all income taxes. * In other words, 10 percent pay 7 out of every 10 dollars and their share of the burden is rising.

And the top 1 percent? Their share of the nation's income has risen, but their tax burden has risen even faster:

* In 1979, affluent individuals made 9.3 percent of the nation's income and they paid 18.3 percent of the country's income tax. * In 2004, they made 16.3 percent of the nation's income but their share of the income tax burden leaped to 36.7 percent. * Today they pay 40 percent of all taxes. * The middle class now make 13.9 percent of the nation's income and their share of the nation's income tax dropped to 4.7 percent. * In 1979, they made 15.8 percent of the nation's income and paid 10.7 percent of the nation's income tax.

Source: Ari Fleischer, "The Taxpaying Minority," Wall Street Journal, April 16, 2007.

Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/07/2008 @ 02:45am
To be clear -

by those "affluent individuals" are meant, the top 1% of taxpayers. They pay 40% of all taxes. Think of it, 1 percent of the population. You think it wise to squeeze them more, nevermind just.

But no, fairness does not apply to the rich.

Incidentally, how many of you were ever offered a job by a poor man?

Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/07/2008 @ 02:54am
Source: Ari Fleischer, "The Taxpaying Minority," Wall Street Journal, April 16, 2007. Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/07/2008 @ 02:45am | ignore this person | warn this person

Ari Fleischer? omigod.

Posted by emile duBois at 11/07/2008 @ 12:04pm
Source: Ari Fleischer

Yea...and everything else I've ever heard him say was soooo acurate.

You've heard of 'garbage in, garbage out', right? With Ari, there is no need to add the garbage. He is a natural resource of lies and garbage.

Posted by Malcontent at 11/07/2008 @ 12:14pm
"But no, fairness does not apply to the rich."

the rich are the most fortunate of people. not only do they own nearly everything, including our government, but they also have armies of poor shnooks defending their privileges, such as you.

Posted by emile duBois at 11/07/2008 @ 12:36pm
emile duBois

You, you blockhead, epitomize the attitude: my mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts.

You ignore that Fleischer's source is the non-partisan and highly respected Congressional Budget Office.

And he was featured by the Wall Street Journal, the country's most respected and professional papers, certainly with respect to the accuracy of business data.

Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/07/2008 @ 4:33pm
You ignore that Fleischer's source is the non-partisan and highly respected Congressional Budget Office. And he was featured by the Wall Street Journal, the country's most respected and professional papers, certainly with respect to the accuracy of business data. Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/07/2008 @ 4:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person

listen up, turkey. I watched Fleischer lie to the American people for years, he has no credibility, none. now if you were to quote his source, the CBO, according to you, I would consider that.

Posted by emile duBois at 11/07/2008 @ 4:36pm
the top tax rate during wartime was 90%. when the rich start paying that again, I will agree that they are paying their fair share.

Posted by emile duBois at 11/07/2008 @ 4:38pm
And he was featured by the Wall Street Journal, Murdoch's most respected and professional paper.

Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/07/2008 @ 4:33pm

Posted by Malcontent at 11/07/2008 @ 6:18pm
Ari Fleischer:

Press Secretary for Jon Fossel.

Press secretary for Congressmen Norman Lent.

Press secretary for Congressman Joseph DioGuardi.

Field-director for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Senator Pete Domenici's press secretary.

Communications director for Elizabeth Dole.

Spokesman for the House of Representatives' Ways and Means Committee.

Ari Fleischer; professional liar.

Posted by Malcontent at 11/07/2008 @ 6:24pm
Mal, quantity and quality from you.

Posted by emile duBois at 11/07/2008 @ 7:47pm
emile duBois at 4:38pm

Grab both your ears and pull your head out of your ass. Perhaps you'll then notice that Fleischer's source is indeed the COB and he is featured by the most respected financial newspaper in the country.

You know those numbers are real, you just don't want to admit to them. It is impossible to have a conversation with a creature as dishonest and shameless as you. And that goes for that other jerk, malcontent.

The truth of data offered by a newspaper is unaffected by whether or not the reporter is a child molester, the printer an acoholic, the owner of the press a thief, the paper stock rancid. Are those data accurate is all that matters. To pretend that it is not all that matters, to disqualify data on the basis of guilt by association, is pure McCarthyism.

Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/07/2008 @ 9:06pm
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/07/2008 @ 9:06pm | ignore this person | warn this person

rancid? yes that's you.

Posted by emile duBois at 11/07/2008 @ 9:33pm