Very good observations, but mine don't exactly match up.
1. You mention that we are divided between extremes. I don't necessarily agree. Don't listen to just the rhetoric. Our system is set up that way, the checks and balances and divided government stops the tyranny of the majority. If you look at the numbers and facts the two sides are not that far apart. Obama has continued almost all of George Bush’s foreign policies. We still have GITMO, still conducting Drone attacks. The only difference is tone and nuance. As for domestic policies, we still collect the same intelligence, same immigration policy, etc. On the fiscal side we are arguing about the top tax rate being 39.5% vice 36%. We’re arguing over taxes being 24% of GDP vice 22%. Those are not extremes. Not really.
2. As for Obama getting re-elected. Everyone forgets the power of Incumbency. A little remembered fact. Only once in our entire history has a party and new president lost the popular vote after only four years. (Jimmy Carter, which tells you a lot about Regan). The other times, Polk didn’t run, and Cleveland won the popular vote but lost the electoral college (6 new states). Presidents and or parties are almost always given the full eight years. It takes that long for them to piss everyone off enough that they get thrown out. This was why I was so hesitant about Romney winning, despite the atrocious economic situation.
3. As for the parties always fielding an Ethic candidate. Every election is different. It always comes down to the candidates themselves and the times they are in. Who can energize his/her own base while removing a few from the other parties base. Or at least convincing them not to vote.
4. Romney was a middle of the road business man who governed a very liberal state. While there, he established a record that was way less than conservative. He didn’t energize his base. And Obama locked his base in. The democrats waged a very hard and very negative campaign and it worked. Romney got about the same as McCain from 4 years earlier, Obama got 6 million less, but hung on.
5. A 400K swing distributed through six key states would have swung it for the republicans. In all honesty, if Romney had been African-American I don’t think it would have made a difference. He might have picked up some minority vote, but might have lost some white vote.
6. (Very General Statement) The democrats are made up mostly, Unions, Young Unmarried Women, Minorities. The republicans are made up of Fiscal Conservatives, Strong Defense, Evangelical (social Conservative).
7. The voting pattern of minorities is not only because of the candidate’s ethnicity, but his policies. Bill Clinton got huge amounts of African-American voters. It was because he connected with them. George Bush got more than normal Mexican-American voters because of his efforts and policies. Not a majority, but more than either McCain or Romney. What I’m trying to say is that Policies and communication are way more important that Ethnicity, even among minorities. I will grant that it helped, but I don’t believe it was deciding factor.
8. Your final statement about Democracy needing to work better made me smile. Who says! I think it’s working the way it is supposed to. And I’m saying this from the point of view of someone who has lost the last two elections. Not all problems need to be solved. Also, What I think is a problem may not be considered as such by others. It has a habit of evening out in the long run. I really, really think that the process is as important if not more so than the result. We just had a major argument in this country. Yelling and screaming at each other for a year. We cleared the air, some people were disappointed, some overjoyed at the results. But the main thing was it was out in the open and everyone got a chance to participate. It wasn’t thrust upon us from outside. If we don’t like the results then we’ll have to buckle down and try harder next time. I believe that the main benefit of democracy is that it doesn’t let us go too far down the wrong path. We’ll either throw the bums out, or it was the right path after all. I think that if we had one party rule for 20 or 30 years then we would really start having problems. Some people would feel left out, not part of the system and the only way to get what they wanted would be through revolution.
9. Because of the divided government (House being Republican) I am pretty sure that nothing to sever will happen. We will muddle through these next four years and do it all over again. My predictions are Hillary Clinton vs. Marc Rubio. (maybe Paul Ryan)
10. On a side note, there is a feeling starting to spread among some conservative thinking to “let it all burn”. To give them (liberals) everything they want and let them completely ruin the economy. To raise taxes to the rate at which we are spending money, so people will feel the true pain. Only this way will the public change their minds. Others are talking about going ‘John Galt” (Anne Rand) and checking out of the system. Not working as hard, not starting or expanding business, not risking capital. If the government is only going to take it and redistribute it then why try. If this becomes a movement then the economy is really screwed. I don’t think this will really happen that much, but it’s starting and will depend on how bad it gets. Scary but interesting idea??
