My take on the US election
Now that we have a very clear picture how the election results have turned out, here is my take:
House of Representatives
I was quite pleased to see the Democrats take the House. Not so much that I was inspired them, but like many Americans felt, I was so sick of the Republicans that I felt they needed a good hard slap on the wrist. It turns out many Americans agree and according to the exit polls the Iraq War and corruption were the two big issues that took down the GOP in the House. It appears the Republicans are becoming a more Southern dominated party and will be even more right wing as most of the losses were in the Great Lakes and Northeast, but they also had some in the Midwest and Rockies which generally lean Republican. By the same token, most of the Democrat wins were on the right of the party so this should be interesting as the party was dominated by big city Liberals up until now. On the plus side, this will make them a bigger tent party, which is what they need to do to successfully capture independent votes, but on the down side this could lead to a lot of infighting which could hurt the party in 2008. I am cautiously optimistic, but I don't expect any radical changes, but rather expect this will slow the Bush's right wing agenda down. As much as I don't like the Republicans, I do hope the Democrats reach out and try and seek as much consensus, although I don't expect the Bush administration to be very conciliatory
Senate
I was far less certain about the Democrats taking Senate, but now it appears to be a near certainty and this is definitely a big blow to the Republicans as they needed to lose 40% of their seats up for re-election. More interestingly, 4 of the six losses were in states Bush won in 2004 including normally safe ones like Montana. I was pleased to see DeWine and Santorum get handidly defeated. I was disappointed to see Lincoln Chaffee lose since he was one of the few moderates left in the Republicans, however considering he had a 62% approval rating in Rhode Island, he probably lost more due to party affiliation than dissatisfaction with him. Two independents, Sanders and Liebermann were elected who will both caucus with the Democrats. I think this will be a good thing as Sanders is very left wing while Liebermann is on the right of the Democrats so it can show the party can reach out to both hard core Liberals and Centre-right Democrats. Missouri and Montana were both interesting races. In the case of Montana, it looks like Tester would actually take it, but in the end only squeaked by, still it looks like he isn't too liberal for Montana as the campaign ad said. On the other hand I was initially almost positive the Republicans would hold Missouri, but James Carville on CNN kept on saying the urban precincts were coming in late which probably explains why the Democrats overcame an early 10 point deficit to take Missouri. Virginia is still not yet called, but with all but three precincts in and an 8,000 vote lead, it is pretty much a near certainty the Democrats will take this one. I was though disappointed Harold Ford Jr. was unable to win Tennessee as this was a vicious campaign, but at least he put up a spirited fight.
Governor Races
The Democrats also made gains here. Massachusetts elected only the second Black governor of any US state and by a large margin despite going Republican in 2002. Canadian born Jennifer Granholm was re-elected in Michigan, so pleased to see a former fellow Canadian win even if she was only three when she moved to the United States. I also think Arnold Schwartznegger's win in a very liberal state should be a clear sign of where Republicans and Conservatives here in Canada need to go. He actually adopted tough environmental standards, was socially moderate, yet still a strong economic conservative. Hopefully the next leader of the Republicans fits this mold, but considering their base is mostly from the religious right I have my doubts.
Ballot Measures
These were also interesting to watch. Just as the Republicans used Gay Marriage bans as a way to bring out their base, I wonder if the minimum wage raise questions helped bring out more Democrat voters. These all passed, but ironically by the largest margins in the red states as opposed to swing states so I get the impression it is not so much left vs. right, but the Blue States are economically conservative and socially liberal while the Red States seem very right wing on social issues, but less so economic issues. I was glad to see the anti-abortion measure go down in defeat in South Dakota and stem cell research to pass in Missouri. In addition to this it appears Arizona will be the first state to vote against a same sex marriage ban, while in Virginia, Colorado, and South Dakota the same-sex marriage bans had over 40% vote against them. While I would rather have them defeated they fact they are no longer passing by overwhelming margins anymore maybe suggests the religious right is losing its clout even if only slightly.
Affects and Canada-US Relations
For Canadians expecting a radical change in direction, I hate to disappoint you, but it won't happen. The Democrats may be less hawkish on Iraq, but a pullout won't happen right away. On trade issues the Democrats have a tendency to be somewhat more protectionist, although they are better on border security issues since more come from areas closer to the border. That being said I am hopeful this is not an abbration, but a turning point against neo-conservatism. Still it took 40 years to pull the US as far right as it has so it will take many years to swing back in the other direction. I do hope that the Conservatives in Canada take note of this and realize conquer and divide tactics and hard right policies eventually catch up with one and considering Canada is more liberal, Harper doesn't have to go nearly as far right as Bush did to face a backlash if it isn't already starting to happen.
House of Representatives
I was quite pleased to see the Democrats take the House. Not so much that I was inspired them, but like many Americans felt, I was so sick of the Republicans that I felt they needed a good hard slap on the wrist. It turns out many Americans agree and according to the exit polls the Iraq War and corruption were the two big issues that took down the GOP in the House. It appears the Republicans are becoming a more Southern dominated party and will be even more right wing as most of the losses were in the Great Lakes and Northeast, but they also had some in the Midwest and Rockies which generally lean Republican. By the same token, most of the Democrat wins were on the right of the party so this should be interesting as the party was dominated by big city Liberals up until now. On the plus side, this will make them a bigger tent party, which is what they need to do to successfully capture independent votes, but on the down side this could lead to a lot of infighting which could hurt the party in 2008. I am cautiously optimistic, but I don't expect any radical changes, but rather expect this will slow the Bush's right wing agenda down. As much as I don't like the Republicans, I do hope the Democrats reach out and try and seek as much consensus, although I don't expect the Bush administration to be very conciliatory
Senate
I was far less certain about the Democrats taking Senate, but now it appears to be a near certainty and this is definitely a big blow to the Republicans as they needed to lose 40% of their seats up for re-election. More interestingly, 4 of the six losses were in states Bush won in 2004 including normally safe ones like Montana. I was pleased to see DeWine and Santorum get handidly defeated. I was disappointed to see Lincoln Chaffee lose since he was one of the few moderates left in the Republicans, however considering he had a 62% approval rating in Rhode Island, he probably lost more due to party affiliation than dissatisfaction with him. Two independents, Sanders and Liebermann were elected who will both caucus with the Democrats. I think this will be a good thing as Sanders is very left wing while Liebermann is on the right of the Democrats so it can show the party can reach out to both hard core Liberals and Centre-right Democrats. Missouri and Montana were both interesting races. In the case of Montana, it looks like Tester would actually take it, but in the end only squeaked by, still it looks like he isn't too liberal for Montana as the campaign ad said. On the other hand I was initially almost positive the Republicans would hold Missouri, but James Carville on CNN kept on saying the urban precincts were coming in late which probably explains why the Democrats overcame an early 10 point deficit to take Missouri. Virginia is still not yet called, but with all but three precincts in and an 8,000 vote lead, it is pretty much a near certainty the Democrats will take this one. I was though disappointed Harold Ford Jr. was unable to win Tennessee as this was a vicious campaign, but at least he put up a spirited fight.
Governor Races
The Democrats also made gains here. Massachusetts elected only the second Black governor of any US state and by a large margin despite going Republican in 2002. Canadian born Jennifer Granholm was re-elected in Michigan, so pleased to see a former fellow Canadian win even if she was only three when she moved to the United States. I also think Arnold Schwartznegger's win in a very liberal state should be a clear sign of where Republicans and Conservatives here in Canada need to go. He actually adopted tough environmental standards, was socially moderate, yet still a strong economic conservative. Hopefully the next leader of the Republicans fits this mold, but considering their base is mostly from the religious right I have my doubts.
Ballot Measures
These were also interesting to watch. Just as the Republicans used Gay Marriage bans as a way to bring out their base, I wonder if the minimum wage raise questions helped bring out more Democrat voters. These all passed, but ironically by the largest margins in the red states as opposed to swing states so I get the impression it is not so much left vs. right, but the Blue States are economically conservative and socially liberal while the Red States seem very right wing on social issues, but less so economic issues. I was glad to see the anti-abortion measure go down in defeat in South Dakota and stem cell research to pass in Missouri. In addition to this it appears Arizona will be the first state to vote against a same sex marriage ban, while in Virginia, Colorado, and South Dakota the same-sex marriage bans had over 40% vote against them. While I would rather have them defeated they fact they are no longer passing by overwhelming margins anymore maybe suggests the religious right is losing its clout even if only slightly.
Affects and Canada-US Relations
For Canadians expecting a radical change in direction, I hate to disappoint you, but it won't happen. The Democrats may be less hawkish on Iraq, but a pullout won't happen right away. On trade issues the Democrats have a tendency to be somewhat more protectionist, although they are better on border security issues since more come from areas closer to the border. That being said I am hopeful this is not an abbration, but a turning point against neo-conservatism. Still it took 40 years to pull the US as far right as it has so it will take many years to swing back in the other direction. I do hope that the Conservatives in Canada take note of this and realize conquer and divide tactics and hard right policies eventually catch up with one and considering Canada is more liberal, Harper doesn't have to go nearly as far right as Bush did to face a backlash if it isn't already starting to happen.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 3:56 PM
7 Comments:
Now that the dems control the house and senate I really hope that the net neutrality legislation will be passed.
I hope they can get some good things done, but at least if they make an effort to cooperate and the Bush administration ignores them, it will help them in 2008.
ON the Net neutrality legislation, do not know enough to comment on that one.
Net neutrality exists today in that all internet traffic is treated by the telcos (the people who own the wires) equally. What they want to do is have people (ie large companies) pay them more money to give their traffic priority at the expense of people who pay them less. This means large companies can pay to have their web sites delivered more quickly that smaller websites... so bestbuy.com will always load quickly but mom-and-pop-electronics.com may load very slowly. The internet would cease to be an even playing field. This would radically change the internet as we know it, and legislation forbbiding the telcos from doing this was not enacted because the committee voted 11-11 along party lines. Verizon, AT&T do not want net neutrality (they term their version net diversity), and microsoft, google, yahoo, etc. want net neutrality because otherwise they'd probably end up paying gobs of money to the telcos to enusre that their websites load quickly. The real losers would be people who could no longer afford to compete on the internet because they could not afford to have pages that load as quickly as their mega competitors.
This issue is a bit of a sleeper, but if something isn't done the potential for large corporations to effectively own the internet looms.
I suggest you read this CBC article (not too long): Battle for 'Net neutrality' arrives in Canada and could forever alter Internet.
I'd be interested if you have any thoughts on this one...
Sounds interesting. I cannot say I have too strong an opinion either way since I've found the internet for me to be quite quick no matter what. I could see why some firms that require instant messages getting priority. If you are an investor and wish to buy something based on something that happens, you have to get the message out quickly or else it could cost you lots of money. And I should note even many of modest means not to mention most union pension plans do invest in the stock market. Also things such as police, medical personnel, probably need immediate access in the event of an emergency.
However, if you are just talking about average individuals surfing the net, then I agree.
Thanks for the run down Miles. Very thorough.
Rob - I thought I would give a good opinion on this way. Although I am not American, living right next door and the fact they are the most powerful country in the world makes it pretty hard not to have a strong opinion and follow it closely.
Post a Comment
<< Home