Who Will Win the Elections? Predictions and Analysis

[Mentalist]

Which pollster was closest on the 2008 P. election? Let's see. Spread was 6.2 (popular vote). http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.htmla couple days prior, and both had a very low 2.0 MoE.

Most recent:
Rasmussen: dead even, 48:48
Pew: dead even, 47:47

I hope the replacement refs don't have to call this one.

Also:
ABC/WaPo, Gallup, NPR - Romney
CBS/NYT/, NJ, IBD/TIPP, Politico - Obama
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

Popular opinion doesn't decide the president, rather the electoral college. And going by the electoral college numbers Obama has, Romney is sure to lose this election even if he does pick up the popular vote 50.1 to 49.9.

I still believe Obama will win the popular vote, but he sure is going to win the electoral college over Romney.

 

[Astronuc]

Nightmare scenario: The election night that might not end - by the next morning.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-p...o-election-night-might-not-end-110543635.html

 

[Angry Citizen]

Any time Republicans lose, we hear about the supposed end of the Republican party, but it doesn't happen. I don't get the idea that Republicans only appeal to WASP's though. I think it's more just that other ethnicities tend to vote Democratic party in larger numbers.

1) Yes, the Republican Party will end if they lose Virginia again. The Republican Party died in 1976, and was reborn in 1980. Then it died again in 2008, and was reborn in 2010. Now it will die again, and who knows when it will be reborn? Likely within a couple election cycles, yes, but it will be a brand spankin' new Republican Party, likely one that is capable of tapping and trilling its rhotics. In 1980, it switched from the cautious and careful stewards of progress to the regressives of Ronald Reagan that wanted to roll back progress. In 2010, it switched from compassionate conservatism to the followers of Ayn Rand. Now we will see Randian ideology repudiated fully. What will they morph into next? Who knows.

2) You're right, it's more WASMs than WASPs - white, anglo-saxon males. I'm glad for Mormonism's sake that it didn't become a campaign issue, and the evangelicals were capable of swallowing their distaste for the followers of Smith.

But this is off topic.

 

[russ_watters]

If it dies and is reborn every two years, I'm ok with it. Wish I had so many lives.

 

[Angry Citizen]

If it dies and is reborn every two years, I'm ok with it. Wish I had so many lives.

If you came back as russ_gabo of Zululand, then russ_devereaux of France upon your deaths, would you really?

 

[CAC1001]

1In 1980, it switched from the cautious and careful stewards of progress to the regressives of Ronald Reagan that wanted to roll back progress.

How do you define progress? I would argue that Reagan's policies and Clinton's very similar (economic) policies gave us some very prosperous economic times. If you want to look at left/right dichotomies, compare the economic and fiscal situation of California with that of Texas, or of Germany and Switzerland (probably the two most right-wing nations in Europe) with the likes of France, Italy, Spain, Greece, etc...on California, that state was not built into the great state it is following the current policies of large government regulation, high spending, and high taxes it currently adheres to. New York state has lost two seats in the House due to population declining (another very "progressive" state).

In 2010, it switched from compassionate conservatism to the followers of Ayn Rand. Now we will see Randian ideology repudiated fully. What will they morph into next? Who knows.

By that argument, you could say we've also seen the "progressive" Democratic party arguments repudiated in 2010. And while the Republican party can be too far right for my tastes, I'd also make the argument that the Democratic party has gone too far left as of late.

BTW, Romney has not run as a far-right Republican.

2) You're right, it's more WASMs than WASPs - white, anglo-saxon males. I'm glad for Mormonism's sake that it didn't become a campaign issue, and the evangelicals were capable of swallowing their distaste for the followers of Smith.

But this is off topic.

Again, what makes the Republican party only appeal to WASPs or WASMs? From what I can tell, it's simply that other ethnicities do not agree as much with the policies of limited government is all, and also a perceived racism within the Republican party. On social issues, Hispanics and even blacks tend to lean pretty conservative.

 

[Angry Citizen]

If you want to look at left/right dichotomies, compare the economic and fiscal situation of California with that of Texas

Okay. Please, peruse this article. Let's play a drinking game. Every time Texas is dead last in something (if it's a positive) or first in something (if it's a negative), let's take a drink.

http://texaslsg.org/texasonthebrink/texasonthebrink.pdf

Germany and Switzerland (probably the two most right-wing nations in Europe) with the likes of France, Italy, Spain, Greece

On what basis do you believe Germany is a "right wing nation"? Its economy is heavily protectionist. They have a vast social safety net. They're heavily unionized. They have socialized medicine. Their top tier tax rate is 45%, plus they have a value-added tax. The German government extracts about 40% of GDP in taxes; ours is 26%. Don't tell me Germany is anything remotely close to a right wing nation. They're a smart nation with a massive manufacturing base, and the EU has allowed them to dominate the nations you mentioned.

A better comparison is between the most left wing nation, Norway, with the rest of Europe. Norway's unemployment rate is 2.6%. Yes, 2.6%. It also features perhaps the best and most comprehensive social safety net in the entire world. Unsurprisingly, it's also not a member of the EU. Imagine that.

It's funny you mention France, incidentally. What is so wrong about their economy, in your estimation?

By that argument, you could say we've also seen the "progressive" Democratic party arguments repudiated in 2010.

The one that gave us socialized medicine? The one that closed Gitmo? The one that signed Kyoto? The one that reinstated Glass-Steagal?

Oh wait. None of that happened. If anything, 2010 was a repudiation of the conservative approach that the Democrats have taken since Reagan's triumph. Obama has struck a populist tone this election cycle, one focused on attacking the rich. It's clearly working.

Again, what makes the Republican party only appeal to WASPs or WASMs?

I could say a lot about "why", but it would get me banned most likely.

The reason I can say that, however, is that WASMs are the only demographic that supports the Republicans by a comfortable margin. Women? Democrat. Blacks? Democrat, overwhelmingly. Hispanics? Democrat. Atheists? Democrat. Seculars? Democrat. Romney holds an appeal with white religious males - and that, more than anything, is why he will lose on Tuesday.

BTW, Romney has not run as a far-right Republican.

Which Romney? The one since Denver, the one in 2008, the one in the Republican primaries..?

 

[russ_watters]

If you came back as russ_gabo of Zululand, then russ_devereaux of France upon your deaths, would you really?

In two years (with no elections in between!), I don't think the world could change quite so much.

My point is that I always assume when people say that something/someone "died", they aren't coming back. To say that the GOP "died", but then came back with a vengeance in the very next election seems pretty silly to me.

Regardless, you have made some more specific predictions about what would happen in this election. Predictions, some of which I expect to be spectacularly wrong.

 

[CAC1001]

Okay. Please, peruse this article. Let's play a drinking game. Every time Texas is dead last in something (if it's a positive) or first in something (if it's a negative), let's take a drink.

http://texaslsg.org/texasonthebrink/texasonthebrink.pdf

A few things:

1) You're citing a left-leaning research caucus in the Texas house, giving what is in many ways a rather arbitrary ranking IMO.

2) I'm talking more about the economic and fiscal health of the state. That Texas has lots of people moving into it, healthy economic growth, and an unemployment rate below the national average. I think one can very much make the argument perhaps for additional spending, public services and regulations in Texas, but the point is not to overdo it in the way California has.

3) The state that is literally "on-the-brink" I'd say is California right now. Not because of having more public services, or more spending, or higher taxes, or more regulations per se, but because of doing them excessively.

On what basis do you believe Germany is a "right wing nation"? Its economy is heavily protectionist. They have a vast social safety net. They're heavily unionized. They have socialized medicine. Their top tier tax rate is 45%, plus they have a value-added tax. The German government extracts about 40% of GDP in taxes; ours is 26%. Don't tell me Germany is anything remotely close to a right wing nation. They're a smart nation with a massive manufacturing base, and the EU has allowed them to dominate the nations you mentioned.

By European standards, and even by certain American standards, Germany is pretty right-wing IMO. They adhere to a philosophy known as Ordoliberalism, which is a variant of neoliberalism, but one which while having a heavy focus on promoting a market capitalist economy, also has an emphasis on promoting a strong role for the State in making sure that said economy has healthy competition and also a strong safety net. The Germans focus very much on being able to pay for their large safety net (different from America) however and have come under a lot of criticism as of late for engaging in and pushing for austerity measures (also different from America right now). They have high unionization, but their system works where the unions have a much better working relationship with employers in terms of how things get worked out, so that the relationship is not as combative as we see in a country like the U.S. or the U.K pre-Thatcher (a pretty hard-core right-winger who turned around the UK's economy and stopped it from going over a cliff).

Germany does not have socialized medicine. They have a universal healthcare system that is a combination of public and private elements. I would argue that the EU has not allowed them to dominate the other nations, that they have dominated because, unlike the other nations that became very profligate with their spending and did not focus on actually producing things, Germany has focused on building an economy that actually makes lots of things and on being fairly fiscally responsible. The backbone of the German economy is the "Mittelstand," all of the small and medium-sized firms that focus on producing products focused on engineering and craftsmanship, for which Germany is reknowned. Germany is able to get away with levels of protectionism because the United States, one of its biggest customer countries, is not very protectionist (Germany is a major exporter).

The irony is that the EU was created to prevent Germany from becoming dominant, but due to the actions of the other nations, has led to Germany inadverdently becoming the most dominant economy, and hence nation, in the EU.

Also look at Switzerland, which is very free-market-oriented.

A better comparison is between the most left wing nation, Norway, with the rest of Europe. Norway's unemployment rate is 2.6%. Yes, 2.6%. It also features perhaps the best and most comprehensive social safety net in the entire world. Unsurprisingly, it's also not a member of the EU. Imagine that.

A few things:

1) Norway gets 20% of its GDP from oil (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/no.html), as it's one of the largest oil exporters and also a large exporter of gas. When you have nearly one-fourth of your GDP from exporting oil, it's not difficult to have a large safety net and sound finances.

2) It's a small country, with a population of 4.9 million people. There's more than that in New York City.

3) A country that has large fossil fuel revenues and a relatively homogenous, small population, is not that difficult to govern with regards to maintaining a large safety net and sound finances.

4) I don't know if I'd agree that Norway is the most "left-wing" nation in Europe.

It's funny you mention France, incidentally. What is so wrong about their economy, in your estimation?

Excessive spending and terrible business environment.

The one that gave us socialized medicine? The one that closed Gitmo? The one that signed Kyoto? The one that reinstated Glass-Steagal?

Oh wait. None of that happened. If anything, 2010 was a repudiation of the conservative approach that the Democrats have taken since Reagan's triumph. Obama has struck a populist tone this election cycle, one focused on attacking the rich. It's clearly working.

I think it takes a real stretch of the imagination to claim that the Democrats lost in 2010 for being too conservative. Leftists aren't stupid. That would be like conservatives getting mad at the Republican party for being too left-wing, and thus voting in scores of Democrats.

One of the strategies that had been used by the Democrats to win control of the House and Senate in 2006 was to run a lot of conservative Democratic party candidates, as opposed to far-left candidates. And yes, they did give us socialized medicine, via Obamacare, which they had to pull every trick in the book to ram through. I'd say Obama is running on a populist tone for two reasons:

1) He has nothing else to run on

2) He needs to pull his base out for this election (which means the internal polling in his campaign shows him in trouble). Instead of running centrist, he's running hard left right now. He's trying to appeal to his base, not to independent voters.

The reason I can say that, however, is that WASMs are the only demographic that supports the Republicans by a comfortable margin. Women? Democrat. Blacks? Democrat, overwhelmingly. Hispanics? Democrat. Atheists? Democrat. Seculars? Democrat. Romney holds an appeal with white religious males - and that, more than anything, is why he will lose on Tuesday.

Yes, but there is no real reason for Hispanics and blacks to support Democrats overwhelmingly except for reasons of 1) not liking the Republican ideas of limited government and/or 2) perceiving the Republican party as being racist. Women can go either way (they are who got Bush elected). Atheists and seculars, no surprise there, although even those I think would lean more Republican if not for the Republicans seeking to ram religion down people's throats so much.

Which Romney? The one since Denver, the one in 2008, the one in the Republican primaries..?

Since Denver. Obama ran pretty far left during the 2008 Democratic primaries as well, so I don't see what the big deal there is. He's also running very far left-wing now.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Obama ran pretty far left during the 2008 Democratic primaries as well, so I don't see what the big deal there is. He's also running very far left-wing now.

Wha? Obama has pretty much always run as slightly to the right of Clinton, and he governed slightly to the right of Clinton (Obamacare is nearly identical to the Republican plan put forward by Gingrich's house. Obama's position on taxes is lower than Clinton but higher than Bush, so on and so forth).

The only issue he is further left than Clinton seems to be financial regulation, and that's clearly more in response to recent history than anything (no matter who was president, SOME form of financial regulation was going to happen after the massive bank bailouts).

Now, Obama seems to be running primarily on pointing out that Romney appears to be something of an out of touch plutocrat (he seems to have been aided by Romney himself), and on women's issues (where he has been aided by some poorly thought out remarks by a host of Republicans). At least these are the adds I've been seeing.

Its helps to remember that the democratic tent is less 'ideologically pure' than the Republican tent, so successful primary candidates can run as more moderate than successful Republican primary candidates.

 

[CAC1001]

Wha? Obama has pretty much always run as slightly to the right of Clinton, and he governed slightly to the right of Clinton (Obamacare is nearly identical to the Republican plan put forward by Gingrich's house. Obama's position on taxes is lower than Clinton but higher than Bush, so on and so forth).

Would have to disagree that he ever ran slightly to the right of Clinton. Clinton was what they call a "Third Way" Democrat, although even he tried governing to the left once elected initially. Then when the congress switched Republican, he declared, "The Era of Big Government is over." It is true that the Republicans put forward a plan with an individual mandate during the 1990s, but that was the establishment of the Republican party and the (surprisingly) the Heritage Foundation. But the grassroots conservative portion of the party never agreed with that plan and the Cato Institute at the time ran an article talking about how concerning it was to freedom that even the Republican party had endorsed the idea that the government can mandate people purchase something.

Some people think the Republican resistance to Obama's healthcare mandate was just partisan, but that isn't the case. Republicans were/are seriously bent-out-of-shape over the mandate, and many were/are not even aware that the Republican politicians had supported such a thing during the 1990s. Obama himself has said he is for complete single-payer healthcare (he defined it as a form of "Medicare-for-all" in a speech), but he understands that trying to move America outright to that wouldn't be practical, however some argue that Obamacare is single-payer by proxy.

I don't see how he has governed to the right of Clinton. He pushed for cap-and-trade and for union card check, and has sought to implement both in a way via the executive as opposed to the legislative as the legislative wouldn't pass them. I'd say the only reason he is for lower taxes than Clinton is because raising all taxes to Clinton levels would mean raising taxes on the middle-class and poor, and doing so right in the middle of a bad economy, which could make things even worse.

The only issue he is further left than Clinton seems to be financial regulation, and that's clearly more in response to recent history than anything (no matter who was president, SOME form of financial regulation was going to happen after the massive bank bailouts).

I agree on his being more to the left on financial regulation.

Now, Obama seems to be running primarily on pointing out that Romney appears to be something of an out of touch plutocrat (he seems to have been aided by Romney himself), and on women's issues (where he has been aided by some poorly thought out remarks by a host of Republicans). At least these are the adds I've been seeing.

Yes, Obama has sought the entire election to portray Romney as an out-of-touch evil plutocrat. Romney also made some remarks that can be manipulated to make him look bad.

Its helps to remember that the democratic tent is less 'ideologically pure' than the Republican tent, so successful primary candidates can run as more moderate than successful Republican primary candidates.

MMMMM...maybe. Both of them seem pretty ideologically pure to me.

 

[SixNein]

I don't read the economist but I heard about, and can recognize the social impact of, an endorsement from a magazine called The Economist in a time when the economy is a political topic.

It's a good magazine.

 

[SixNein]

In two years (with no elections in between!), I don't think the world could change quite so much.

My point is that I always assume when people say that something/someone "died", they aren't coming back. To say that the GOP "died", but then came back with a vengeance in the very next election seems pretty silly to me.

Regardless, you have made some more specific predictions about what would happen in this election. Predictions, some of which I expect to be spectacularly wrong.

One has to give consideration to how our system works. It heavily favors a 2-party system. So another group just takes over one of the parties when it dies. In this case, the tea party seems to have consumed quite a bit of the republican party. "RINO's" are hunted down and eliminated.

 

[jobyts]

Obama. Intrade says so.

http://www.intrade.com

 

[Astronuc]

Obama Ahead in Two Battleground States
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-ahead-two-battleground-states-200800113.html

I'll be glad when the election is over, but not thrilled with the outcome regardless the winner.

 

[Mentalist]

I agree, Astronuc. But in order for us to be thrilled, there needs to be a change within the electorate. If the electorate doesn't change its attitude to whom it places as its leader, then we will have much of the same each and every time.

 

[Pythagorean]

It's a good magazine.

I'm more of a physics today kinda guy. And Hustler.

 

[jtbell]

Don't let the title mislead you. The Economist is probably the best English-language general news magazine, now that Time is a shadow of its old self, and and Newsweek and US News & World Report are gone or going away. My wife and I started subscribing to The Economist this year after we realized that I was buying it often enough at airports (great in-flight reading!) and bookstores at $8 or so a pop to make a subscription worthwhile.

 

[SixNein]

Don't let the title mislead you. The Economist is probably the best English-language general news magazine, now that Time is a shadow of its old self, and and Newsweek and US News & World Report are gone or going away. My wife and I started subscribing to The Economist this year after we realized that I was buying it often enough at airports (great in-flight reading!) and bookstores at $8 or so a pop to make a subscription worthwhile.

Same here

 

[ParticleGrl]

It is true that the Republicans put forward a plan with an individual mandate during the 1990s, but that was the establishment of the Republican party

Right- so Obama's healthplan pretty much IS the health plan of the 90s Republicans, which was the right wing alternative to Clinton's health plan.

I don't see how he has governed to the right of Clinton. He pushed for cap-and-trade and for union card check

Cap-and-trade was also the republican position on global warming in the 90s, as an alternative to a carbon tax. Its very obviously a market based regulation. Again, right of Clinton.

I honestly have no idea what Clinton's stance on union card check/labor organization was while he was president, so I can't make the comparison there.

On many (perhaps most) major policy issues, Obama sides with the Republican party of the 1990s- hence, slightly to the right of Clinton.

 

[Czcibor]

In my country media tend to described the recent phase of US election campaign as something as close match. I see here 4 vs. 33 for Obama. Does it mean that:
- Obama is destined to win and media in my country don't get the peculiarities of electoral college?
- Rather Obama would win, thus practically everyone says so, but that's actually a small advantage?
- That is simply a forum on which Obama is liked which makes assessment of his chances more optimistic?

The Economist? I prefer electronic version + anonymous browsing througj Chrome.

 

[Angry Citizen]

- Obama is destined to win and media in my country don't get the peculiarities of electoral college?
- Rather Obama would win, thus practically everyone says so, but that's actually a small advantage?
- That is simply a forum on which Obama is liked which makes assessment of his chances more optimistic?

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

This site is a good answer. Also, physicsforums is actually a comparatively right wing site. I'm pretty sure I'm the most left wing person here, and I'd rank myself not very left of center. Only people who believe Karl Rove and Dick Morris are seriously believing that Romney has much of a shot on Tuesday.

 

[moonman239]

The tables will turn in Romney's favor.

 

[Angry Citizen]

The tables will turn in Romney's favor.

On what do you base this?

 

[russ_watters]

Also, physicsforums is actually a comparatively right wing site. I'm pretty sure I'm the most left wing person here, and I'd rank myself not very left of center.

Feel free to participate in the thread with the quiz on political orientation.

 

[AlephZero]

Feel free to participate in the thread with the quiz on political orientation.

There's an interesting op-ed comment in this weekend's UK Financial Times on the orientation shift in US politics: not so many years ago, the left-wing of political opinion in Europe had no big problem with Clinton's policies, and the right wing no big problem with George Bush.

But now, Obama is seen as more or less aligned with the mainstream European right wing, and a serious French newpaper has run a political analysis under the headline "Is Romney an extra-terrestrial?". Typical Europoean opinion polls would prefer Obama over Romney by about 70% to 7%.

From personal experience, I don't think the political spectrum has shifted much in Europe in that time frame - and if anything it's shifted to the right, not to the left.

 

[mheslep]

Obama. Intrade says so.

http://www.intrade.com

Wisdom of the crowd, and that particular crowd pays to give opinions. Or, as they say, Money talks, BS walks. Intrade is the most convincing piece of evidence I've seen that Obama will win re-election (unfortunately).

 

[mheslep]

But Ras was off by 2 or 3 on Ohio, and they show Ohio roughly tied. The PV doesn't matter.

PV is not decisive. Yes it matters, especially trend, both as indicator for electoral outcome and for the political power of the presidency. If national PV had no relevance, no pollster would bother with it.

 

[mheslep]

Don't let the title mislead you. The Economist is probably the best English-language general news magazine, now that Time is a shadow of its old self, and and Newsweek and US News & World Report are gone or going away. My wife and I started subscribing to The Economist this year after we realized that I was buying it often enough at airports (great in-flight reading!) and bookstores at $8 or so a pop to make a subscription worthwhile.

With a clear but not radical lean to the left in my view. I've also been reading The E for decades on and off; it is has moved left quite a bit from twenty years ago.

 

[mheslep]

...
I don't see how he has governed to the right of Clinton. ...

I think the signature difference is welfare reform, which Clinton signed. By contrast Obama is using executive power to undermine the law of the land (abusing the power in my view).

 

[Angry Citizen]

I think the signature difference is welfare reform, which Clinton signed. By contrast Obama is using executive power to undermine the law of the land (abusing the power in my view).

No he's not:

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/does-obamas-plan-gut-welfare-reform/

Work requirements are not simply being “dropped.” States may now change the requirements — revising, adding or eliminating them — as part of a federally approved state-specific plan to increase job placement.
And it won’t “gut” the 1996 law to ease the requirement. Benefits still won’t be paid beyond an allotted time, whether the recipient is working or not.

 

[mheslep]

... Also, physicsforums is actually a comparatively right wing site. I'm pretty sure I'm the most left wing person here, and I'd rank myself not very left of center. ...

C'mon. You describe a political party as "dead" and "will end". On examination you grant you state those words mean it might win the next election. Now PF is a "comparatively right wing" site, because, why, posts here are only compared to your personal political views, or of the Daily Worker?

 

[Angry Citizen]

C'mon. You describe a political party as "dead" and "will end". On examination you grant you state those words mean it might win the next election.

You're twisting my words. Would you seriously contend that the Republican Party of 1950, the one that built the Interstate Highway System, is the same Republican Party that wants to give your woman a transvaginal ultrasound? No - the parties are almost wholly divorced from one another except in name. When a party dies, its apparatus is taken over by the next most popular ideological movement. The Republican Party of today would hardly recognize itself even a scant ten years ago. I argue that it wouldn't even really care for what it was four years ago, when McCain ran with a pro-climate change view and other "heresies". The Republican Party of today is not the same party of yesterday. That was my point.

Now PF is a "comparatively right wing" site, because, why, posts here are only compared to your personal political views, or of the Daily Worker?

Because I'm arguing with you about welfare work requirements. On left-leaning sites, I argue with people about whether to nationalize just the banks or half the economy. Believe me, I know the difference. PF has its fair share of right-wingers, and the leftists come across more as moderates and American Liberals than any serious, European-style leftist.

And no, I've never read the Daily Worker.

 

[CAC1001]

Right- so Obama's healthplan pretty much IS the health plan of the 90s Republicans, which was the right wing alternative to Clinton's health plan.

To a person like myself, there is nothing right-wing about either plan. The Republicans at the time, for whatever reason, adopted said plan and an individual mandate. But I'd disagree that there is/was anything right-wing about it.

Cap-and-trade was also the republican position on global warming in the 90s, as an alternative to a carbon tax. Its very obviously a market based regulation. Again, right of Clinton.

Didn't know that about the Republicans supporting carbon cap-and-trade, however, cap-and-trade applied to pollution emissions from energy plants was a Republican idea, the idea being market-based as you said. The problem with cap-and-trade applied to carbon emissions, and why Republicans oppose it, is that there is no known way to cap the emissions. So it will essentially act as a tax. Technologies to "scrub" the other forms of emissions, such as sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and so forth, companies were able to utilize.

It's like the difference between filtering the pollutants out of a car's exhaust versus filtering the carbon dioxide of the exhaust itself. While you can make the exhaust a lot cleaner, the CO2 still must be released into the atmosphere right now.

On many (perhaps most) major policy issues, Obama sides with the Republican party of the 1990s- hence, slightly to the right of Clinton.

I don't think Obama would have agreed with the welfare reform the Republicans passed, NAFTA, the capital gains tax rate cut Clinton signed, or the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act he signed.

 

[CAC1001]

There's an interesting op-ed comment in this weekend's UK Financial Times on the orientation shift in US politics: not so many years ago, the left-wing of political opinion in Europe had no big problem with Clinton's policies, and the right wing no big problem with George Bush.

But now, Obama is seen as more or less aligned with the mainstream European right wing, and a serious French newpaper has run a political analysis under the headline "Is Romney an extra-terrestrial?". Typical Europoean opinion polls would prefer Obama over Romney by about 70% to 7%.

The American right-wing is rather alien to many Europeans. I find a French newspaper saying that rather ironic, as France just elected a proud socialist to power.