The Coming November Elections.

Something tells me we’re going to have a decision election this time around. No more strict sectionalism (as has happened since 2000 with a foreshadowing in 1996), but a beginning of a building of official consensus (official being what’s agreed upon by those who are allowed to care enough) towards which way the nation will go.

I have two scenarios in mind for the coming elections, which will depict the decision that’s being made:

First, a Democratic Victory:

Basically, Obama and the Dems (thinking that whatever Obama does rubs off on the Democrats) hold most of what they have (Indiana’s gone, and it don’t deserve saving if you ask this Hoosier-never-wannabee), plus add on the rest of the East Coast, Missouri, Arizona and Montana. Other areas presently Reddened up (done in the early nineties so as to promote Geographic Continuity…or, more to the point, to show the Republican’s Southern Strategy succeeding) have more and more blue in them.

Along with this, imagine the Democrats holding onto (or even adding to) their Senate Majority and rebuilding a majority in the house.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Second, a Republican Victory:

So…how to explain the remaining Blue states?

  • Small, yet singularly populous areas that are still too populated to be overwhelmed by the wave of red (New York, Maryland, Illinois, Washington – Four states that had 60%+ for Kerry in 2004, yet could have had a small area removed from itself and happily gone Republican)
  • Just too Democratic (California, Hawaii, Rhode Island and Connecticut. Massachusetts is thrown in this as I think they’ll vote Democratic; same with Delaware. Yes, I said Delaware might go Republican last posting. Not fully sure about Delaware at the moment)
  • Set aside to punish, plunder and serve as reminders as why you support the one percent as they rape you (Minnesota and Michigan, bastions of Liberalism and Socialism that will suffer punishment as Wisconsin has been turned).

Add to that the overwhelming takeover of the Senate (55 seats low, maybe even 60 or 61) and veto-proof numbers in the House for the Republicans.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Is there any difference? I can think of a couple.

First off, the guy who wins the next Election is likely to pick three or four Supreme Court judges. Two to the left, two to the right. With Obama as President it could get to 6-3 to the left, with Romney as President we’re looking at 7-2 to the right. Either way, we’re talking 20-30 years of rulings.

Also, since we’re talking about number levels that would border on rulership, the laws will reflect the will of the ruling party – even without the Supreme Court going their way (which cannot last, given the age of some of the judges).

And understand this: While Obama may be quite inept and seems happy in giving the Fiscal Right Wing of the Republican Party (and libertarians, although they’ll admit it even less than your everyday dishonest Republican) he’s had a lot to fight against. Romney I can easily see as competent and evil. Evil because he’ll turn the USA’s drift towards corporate feudalism into a full-on rush to embrace (and be raped by) corporate feudalism; competent because he IS competent.

Listen to Romney speak – the guy says what he means and explains himself in a way that anyone can understand. When he said “I’m not concerned about the very poor,” he then said “Because they’re being taken care of. I’m more concerned about the working poor.” Never mind his seeming disconnection that his job was to disemploy as many people as he could and take their wages as his profit (that’s what money does when there’s too much out there – those with it come to love harming those who aren’t in a position to hold onto their share); he’s smart and knows how to get his points across.

And meanwhile, in the Supreme Court, we have Obama’s Gamble. Not only will the Health Bill stand or fall with the Supreme Court (as the Conservatives in the court prefer to see the bill as a whole, to stand and fall as such) but the whole of Obama’s legacy and electability. Remember, there’s a sizable portion of the populace who’s waiting on the court to make up THEIR (the populace’s) mind on whether Obama’s health care is constitutional (and therefore legal) or not. Enough on both sides to turn a 50-50 proposition to a 65-35 proposition one way or the other.

Either Government will be seen as a way of solving problems, or can only be seen as the protector of property and wealth. Pro-active, or Re-active. Able to help, or only able to mess things up.

So the maps above.


What Is, Is Right: The Supreme Court Looks At Health Care

So the Supreme Court has listened to three days of arguments over the “Affordable Health Care Act” (Quotations there for more than one reason, let me add). From “Whether this case can exist” to the Mandate to everything else involved with the law, they sat and listened…and sometimes had people brought up to take stands the two sides were in actual agreement with.

I shall only concentrate on the results from the decision of whether the Mandate is constitutional or not (since the rest of the bill is linked to the mandate, by definition if what I heard is true).

I personally think that the Insurance Mandate is constitutional, as otherwise government cannot exist. Consent Of The Government is good, but there must be a way to insure that those who abrogate their responsibilities to that consent don’t profit off their abrogation of responsibility, and if the government cannot do that job, there is NO job that it is thus allowed to do. Think of it: If the Insurance Mandate is unconstitutional, so are Jails and the Police; and since the one thing that Americans agree on is that Governments have the right to get clear “miscreants” (those who abrogate their responsibilities when it benefits them) from society, then this ruling would declare Government unconstitutional. (But then, that’s how I see it. I’m not a constitutional lawyer nor am I in the Supreme Court so use whatever amount of salt you feel you need for this.)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

As things are, I see four possible rulings:

  1. The Mandate Stands, QED The “Affordable Health Care Act” stands (seems unlikely, but is possible)
  2. The Mandate Falls, the bill stands with changes (Not Gonna Happen, and thank God – If anything would be worse than the AHCA, it would be this. We’d be at the mercy of the Health Care Companies, with them able to damn us for any reason whatsoever).
  3. The Mandate Falls, and with it the whole of the ACTA (Is likely and would be bad for many reasons, but if nothing else we’d be back to where we were – with the option of no insurance still there)
  4. ACTA Falls, but not because of the Mandate – Medicaid and Medicare are also declared unconstitutional, as is any attempt to institute universal healthcare. There may be more stuff that’s declared unconstitutional from there. (Why am I the only one bringing this possibility up?)

Number two has a 99 44/100% chance of not happening, so I won’t concern myself with that. I DO list it, as it is a possible ruling, but the justices seemed to treat that as an impossible ruling.

So we get the possibility of the Mandate standing or falling. Here’s what I see happening from the two possibilities, from the election onwards (assuming certain things, like steady energy levels and an arresting of the movement of power (and thus, money) from everyone else to the powerful and (thus) rich):

  • If the Mandate is Declared Constitutional: Obama gets elected along with other Democrats as people come to believe that the Mandate must be good if it’s constitutional. You’ll see plains states, Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico turn Democrat Blue along with the Midwest become solid Democrat and many Southeastern States become shaky in their Redness. The Supreme Court will keep ruling as it does for a while, but the older members will eventually retire (or die), leaving openings for Liberal judges.
  • If the Mandate is Declared Unconstitutional: Romney gets elected as many Democrats lose their seats to Tea-Party Republicans (and those may be the leftmost Republicans, may I add…). Pennsylvania, Delaware and the more independent New England States go Republican, as does much of the Great Lakes Region (Minnesota, Illinois and Michigan are kept Blue to mark the states to be punished and destroyed) and both Nevada and Oregon. The Supreme Court eventually speaks with one voice (with the second voice either muted or removed). Cities that had been thriving start dying, as the stuff that has supported them (both economical and intellectual) dies out.

In short, the ruling will dictate the election, and along with it the future of the USA.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

There are two reasons for this, one obvious and the other not.

The obvious reason is that Obama staked his reputation on the Affordable Health Care Act. He worked to get the bill passed, set up the lines of the law (and the limitations), even ordered the Supreme Court to rule on the law as soon as possible. If the Mandate is declared unconstitutional (and the law struck down) he will be seen as absolutely powerless – even as a nothing – worldwide and in this nation; and that in itself will damage the Democratic Party by association.

The Not-So-Obvious reason is that there’s a lot of people out there – many more than will admit to themselves – who will be using the Supreme Court’s ruling to make up their mind on whether Government-run health insurance is a good thing. Some will think it out, some will do a quick reasoning and others won’t even know they changed their minds until after a while (when they realize they no longer watch CNN instead of Fox (or Fox instead of CNN) for their news), but their minds will be changed by the decision and that decision will have far-reaching repercussions.

They will listen to the ruling, figure that the Supreme Court knows what they’re doing, and conform their thoughts and beliefs to the ruling. They will decide, after the Supreme Court decides what is, that “What Is, Is Right.”

And it will likely translate to Medicaid and Medicare, and from there to the Schools and Universities, and from there to other services. Especially if the ruling is for the Mandate to be unconstitutional, since the ruling would mesh with and accelerate the present tendencies.

Assuming, of course, that the Supreme Court DOESN’T declare AHCA unconstitutional on its own.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

I raise that possibility because there IS that possibility. Clarance Thomas would most happy to declare a lot of “entitlements” unconstitutional, and I’m sure that Scalia would happily join in something he’d been waiting his whole life to do. Alito and Roberts would also go along, since it would go along with their belief that if a service/business can’t be profitable it shouldn’t be allowed to exist – even as a nonprofit charitable entity.

And if AHCA were declared unconstitutional in itself, a lot of entitlements would be in line to be declared unconstitutional. Medicaid and Medicare would be first, as they directly deal with health care. Social Security would be next, since a large proportion of the population is taxed for it (indeed, it’s this act which in many ways lays the groundwork for AHCA).

In essence, the Democratic Party – the party that made its reputation on Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and AHCA – could easily become considered unconstitutional by many, just because of the connection between them and the acts. Whole areas of law could be made to disappear, especially when this affects the election.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

This is what we’re looking at: a generational change in the laws of this nation. Whatever way the Supreme Court goes, the nation will conform.

And it is predicted to happen in June.