T Nation

Socio-Political Predictions

Wanted to mention some predictions I have run across in print , conversation and other media in the last 3 months. Wondering if people would like to “predict the odds” and or discuss the potential implications.

  1. Guiliani runs as Republican candidate for 2008 presidential election, possibly with McCain as VP.

  2. If so, Democrats also nominate Guiliani, but with a different VP candidate.

  3. Constitutional ammendments proposed to ban gay marriage and or abortion. 3/4 of state legislatures expected to pass either one.

  4. Democrats help push a supreme court case to revisit Roe v. Wade with the intent of getting it put back in the states hands to pre-empt a constitutional ammendment.

  5. 2016 (or before) White population drops to 49% creating a situation of there being no race “in majority” in the US.

  6. Democrat AND or Republican party each may split into moral/social v. economic groups with the possibility of a new socially conservative, morally liberal party. Which party is likely to split first?

Of all those predicitions I think either 1 or 2 have the best chance of happening.

I’d amend some of those predictions with these thoughts:

  1. No chance in hell McCain will be a VP.

  2. I predict the Hillary phenomenon will peak and fade as Democrats realize she isn’t a strong national candidate given her tendency to polarize. I predict someone like Evan Bayh will have gotten a bigger profile in four years and will be a candidate.

  3. I don’t think amendments will go very far, if they are even brought up (I now gay marriage already has).

  4. Democrats will never be in favor of returning abortion to the states - it’s already hardwired into them that it is a fundamental right protected in the Constitution. I don’t see them backing off from that, even if it were a tactical move.

  5. “2016 (or before) White population drops to 49% creating a situation of there being no race “in majority” in the US.” - I suspect this could happen as well.

  6. I don’t think there will be much of a split in any real sense. But it could happen - if the Dems continue their bllind allegiance to strict urban Leftism, the moderates of the Democratic Party will have to find a home, and I suspect that alot of them aren’t that interested in the Republican Party.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

  1. “2016 (or before) White population drops to 49% creating a situation of there being no race “in majority” in the US.” - I suspect this could happen as well.

[quote]

does this imply that there is only one other race in the US, or that all the others are lumped into one group vs. caucasian? either way i dont see how this statistic can have mathmatical truth.

[quote]vizunaldth wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:

  1. “2016 (or before) White population drops to 49% creating a situation of there being no race “in majority” in the US.” - I suspect this could happen as well.

does this imply that there is only one other race in the US, or that all the others are lumped into one group vs. caucasian? either way i dont see how this statistic can have mathmatical truth.
[/quote]

A majority is 50%+1. There still may be more whites, but not more thatn all other races combined.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
4) Democrats will never be in favor of returning abortion to the states - it’s already hardwired into them that it is a fundamental right protected in the Constitution. I don’t see them backing off from that, even if it were a tactical move.
[/quote]

I heard the lead strategist for the Democrat party (who’s name I have no clue of) a week after the election say that with the failure of this election, the Democrat party would have to “seriously consider compromise on some social issues such as abortion.”

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
4) Democrats will never be in favor of returning abortion to the states - it’s already hardwired into them that it is a fundamental right protected in the Constitution. I don’t see them backing off from that, even if it were a tactical move.

I heard the lead strategist for the Democrat party (who’s name I have no clue of) a week after the election say that with the failure of this election, the Democrat party would have to “seriously consider compromise on some social issues such as abortion.”
[/quote]

They said the same crap after they had there asses handed to them in 2002.

I think that the left is so elitist that they won’t trust the ‘common folk’ with that much responsibility. Abortion, AA, EEOC - these are iberal bastions that will only be pried from their cold, dead hands.

if its 33 percent, 33 percent, and 34 percent, then the 34 percent is still the majority.

Mertdawg,

"I heard the lead strategist for the Democrat party (who’s name I have no clue of) a week after the election say that with the failure of this election, the Democrat party would have to “seriously consider compromise on some social issues such as abortion.”

I heard the same, but I interpreted that to mean they were going to have to moderate their stances and create a bigger tent - ie, not have pro-choice as a litmus test to be a serious player in the party. Howard Dean was even quoted as saying he thought the Dems should be more open to pro-life Democrats.

Would that manifest itself in a willingness to give abortion back over to the states?

Could be, if they were desparate, but I don’t believe they will get that desperate. Roe v. Wade enshrined abortion rights back in the 1970’s, and no serious Constitutional amendment has gotten any traction to reverse the decision. If the Supreme Court does anything with the abortion issue, it’ll be to do away with it as a fundamental right (a bit of a big if, but I don’t think the Court is going to get any more liberal, but you never know) - and since anti-abortion advocates feel the momentum in their favor (Bush re-elected, may have an opportunity to appoint a Justice), I don’t think an Amendment is seriously on the table.

The other thing is the sheer difficulty of getting an Amendment passed.

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Wanted to mention some predictions I have run across in print , conversation and other media in the last 3 months. Wondering if people would like to “predict the odds” and or discuss the potential implications.

  1. Guiliani runs as Republican candidate for 2008 presidential election, possibly with McCain as VP.

  2. If so, Democrats also nominate Guiliani, but with a different VP candidate.

  3. Constitutional ammendments proposed to ban gay marriage and or abortion. 3/4 of state legislatures expected to pass either one.

  4. Democrats help push a supreme court case to revisit Roe v. Wade with the intent of getting it put back in the states hands to pre-empt a constitutional ammendment.

  5. 2016 (or before) White population drops to 49% creating a situation of there being no race “in majority” in the US.

  6. Democrat AND or Republican party each may split into moral/social v. economic groups with the possibility of a new socially conservative, morally liberal party. Which party is likely to split first?[/quote]

mertdawg:

Very interesting predictions. However, you will never see Rudy at the top of any repubican Presidential ticket. Nor will you see McCain at the bottom of any Presidential ticket.

technically, if it were split 34/33/33, 34 would be the plurality, not the majority

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The other thing is the sheer difficulty of getting an Amendment passed.
[/quote]

But unlike acts of congress, constitutional ammendments can be passed be 3/4 of state legislatures with no absolute time limit. I bet close to 3/4 of state legislatures are majority republican.

Other issues: 50% +1 is the definition of a majority.

I have had lawyers tell me that the supreme court could chose to amend their opinion of a previous case citing only “changing medical knowledge” They gave states some control after 3 months based on “compelling interest” and would only need to amend that with new medical knowledge, the compelling interest of the state to insert themselves into this right can be pushed back to conception. The supreme court “assumed” the power to “interpret” the constitution which isn’t in the constitution anyway, who says they even need a case?

Mertdawg,

“The supreme court “assumed” the power to “interpret” the constitution which isn’t in the constitution anyway, who says they even need a case?”

Great line.

[quote]blitz78 wrote:
technically, if it were split 34/33/33, 34 would be the plurality, not the majority[/quote]

you do learn something new every day. thanks for the correction.

mertdog –

An amendment would have to go through Congress first before it was submitted to the states for ratification – and I think I recall that it needs to go through Congress with a 2/3 supermajority, but I haven’t looked at that section of the Constitution in awhile.

BTW, as to amending the opinion in Roe v. Wade, it would have to be done via another case with the same basic questions. Roe v. Wade has already been modified by such cases as Casey v. Planned Parenthood. The USSC would need a case because their sole means of producing law is via ruling on a case or controversy that comes under their appellate or original jurisdiction.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
mertdog –

An amendment would have to go through Congress first before it was submitted to the states for ratification – and I think I recall that it needs to go through Congress with a 2/3 supermajority, but I haven’t looked at that section of the Constitution in awhile.

BTW, as to amending the opinion in Roe v. Wade, it would have to be done via another case with the same basic questions. Roe v. Wade has already been modified by such cases as Casey v. Planned Parenthood. The USSC would need a case because their sole means of producing law is via ruling on a case or controversy that comes under their appellate or original jurisdiction.[/quote]

I’ll have to check the constitution, but I think that an ammendment can be proposed by 2/3 or either house or senate, and then ratified by 3/4 of either both house and senate or 3/4 state legislatures and I think there’s like 10 years for this to happen.

Also, I agree on overturning Roe v. Wade, however I remember hearing that the way it was worded, it was almost set up so that it could be overturned. Something about “medical evidence at this point in time” medical evidence that could change (and has very much) changed.