I’m writing to let you know that as someone from inside the United States (though on the opposite end up in South Dakota), I’m also interested in hearing more about what you have to say about regarding this election cycle. In case you needed further encouragement, as whether or not I agree with you, you certainly have a perspective on things I don’t find many other places and I enjoy reading. As long as we’re talking politics, in the time I’ve spent reading your blog I’ve come to compare you to Rush Limbaugh, if he were writing a blog about video games instead of doing a politically-based talk show (I don’t know what your thoughts on him are, so please understand that the comparison is meant in the best possible way).
[Malstrom interrupts the emailer...]
What!? Calling me a pundit? Does it look like I am trying to sell a book? Or trying to sell ties, tea, or something like that? I’ve made no money at all from this site…I’ve felt that gaming had been going the wrong way. The Wii gave me hope. Gaming is about new ways to play, family getting together, remembering the classics (Virtual Console), all that good stuff. But in 2005 and 2006, the Game Industry and viral marketers rampant on the message forums said that Nintendo was going to exit the console business, that Wii was a joke, that video games was about Blu-Ray movies, about spending half a grand, about consoles that easily fail, about paying money for online multiplayer… And ever since the Wii’s success, the Wii consumers are delegitimized as actual gamers because they are ‘family gamers’ or ‘casual gamers’ or something different from ‘hardcore’ (hardcore means being the manipulated Industry pawns). Alas, Nintendo has no interest in taking on the Game Industry in Generation Eight which will depress the Wii consumers.
I didn’t make this site to create ‘punditry’. I want gaming to return to its glory days.
[Malstrom resumes the email...]
There’s also one other thing I’ve been wondering about, especially in light of you opening the door to potentially talking more about the election cycle. Provided your willing to look back and talk about previous discussion on the matter, of course.
I’ve been thinking about your previous post of “Email: On the Upcoming Presidential Contest“. While you were right on a lot of points, there are a few matters where I’m curious on where you think things deviated from your prediction:
1) Romney – “The regional issues with Romney (him being from Massachusetts) makes him a no-go in the West and South. If that wasn’t enough to kill him, it would be Romneycare. Romneycare, alone, ensures Romney never, ever gets the nomination. If he did, the GOP would split into a third party.”
And yet, he did get the nomination. My guess would be that it’s a matter of how your first words on him were that he’s “The machine candidate of choice.”, and it’s possible you already covered why the GOP isn’t talking third party thanks to your previous mention of the Tea Party with a little help from Paul Ryan.
2) Sanctorum – “Another yawner. He lost a state-wide race. How can he expect to win a nation wide race? Will drop out early due to lack of money.”
Instead, he ended up being the last candidate to pose a challenge to Romney’s campaign, and I’ve gotten the impression he could have taken it away from Romney if Gingrich hadn’t stayed in as long as he had.
3) ‘that ****ed woman’
Here’s the big one, and possibly the miscalculation that threw your entire prediction off (Perhaps a monkey wrench in your predictions, much like you mentioned not being able to see Lehman Brothers collapsing?). You seemed insistent that she’d get in the race, and in spite of people being so eager to see her run (myself included), her candidacy never came together for reasons that I don’t have a clue about.
“That woman” did explore a presidential campaign. With her movie, the Undefeated, she had pollsters she hired to measure people who had seen the movie and whether or not that changed their perception of her (since she knew she had to battle negative perceptions). Apparently, the polling results came out negative so that is why she didn’t run. (I also suspect that I don’t think Americans would tolerate a female presidential candidate for either party. Look how fast the D party overthrew Hillary for freshman Senator who hadn’t even completed a term in national office.)The Tea Party types wanted to stop Romney as he was the machine candidate. And they would go third party if he was nominated. Gingrich and Sanctorum did go much further because of the anti-Romney sentiment.As the R primary began approaching Texas, the Texas legislature decided it would be change Texas’s primary votes to a ‘winner-take-all’. Since Sanctorum would have won Texas, this would have put Sanctorum into a lead and on the path to the nomination. Something went on behind the scenes then that I don’t know about. I know that R Machine leaders met with Sanctorum. Sanctorum immediately drops out of the race citing so he can spend more time with his daughter (hahaha, who believes that?) Next thing you know, Romney is talking like Reagan and had his VP pick be Ryan.
I think Romney is the Etch-N-Sketch candidate and the compromise was that the R Machine would redraw Romney to be palatable to the conservatives. The conservatives know this, will along with it for now, but then intend to primary him in 2016 if he wins. If Romney wishes to survive such a primary, his Reaganized ‘Etch-N-Sketch’ better remain in place for his first term.
The complaint about Obamacare isn’t really about healthcare but the ‘revolution from above’ mentality. There was no third party because Romney rewrote himself to whatever the electorate wanted. The electorate is very comfortable with a politician rewriting himself to what they want as that suggests Romney isn’t going to do a ‘revolution from above’ play in office. If he does, the Tea Party will immediately primary him (or impeach him if the Rs control Congress). His pick in Ryan as VP really sent a signal that he wasn’t intending to combat the Tea Party once in office. As someone told me, “His pick in Ryan shows he is actually serious about fixing the budget.”
As long as we’re on the subject, I feel like I might as well take a shot of making a prediction of my own (thought it may just be me trying to put together some optimistic thoughts in the midst of where the country is at right now): Presuming that Romney beats Obama in the upcoming election (and I’m feeling pretty optimistic about that even without your recent thoughts on the matter), we could likely see at least the next 16 years of the Presidency being occupied by a Republican candidate. Certainly there’s a lot of unknowns that could pop up, but as it is I can’t see Romney doing worse than Obama (even if Romney was near the bottom of my picks for the Republican Candidate), which should put him in a favorable light in four years when his re-election comes.
16 years? No way. Historically, 12 years is the longest any party can hold onto the presidency.There is very, very bad macro economics coming at the U.S. (and all nations in the world) within 2012-2020. I have numerous books, written decades ago, that say, “I feel sorry for whoever becomes president in 2012.” The demographic bomb of the baby boomers retiring and exploding Medicare and Social Security is one example.I’m not going to waste time talking about the future when 2012 election hasn’t even occurred yet. The only major difference in the future is that conservatives won’t be bouncing from party to party. They have a political vehicle now, and I think they’re going to stay in it for a long while. In other words, a D politician cannot come out in 2014, say how he is interested in cutting taxes, balancing the budget, etc. and get the conservatives to vote for him. Also, the R politician cannot go out and say those same things and then go to Washington to raise taxes, not balance the budget, etc because the Tea Party would immediately primary him.
We’re going to see the two parties much more differentiated from now on.
Then, presuming that he holds onto Paul Ryan as his Vice President and Ryan – who as I’ve heard is in good standing with the Tea Party and someone they were hoping would get in the race this time around – maintains a favorable public opinion and Romney doesn’t taint him in any way, he should be in good position to succeed Romney for the following four to eight years.
I don’t know how flimsy a prediction it is, but if nothing else it gives me a more positive outlook for the future than I have worrying about Obama.
Thanks for reading, and thank you for having such an entertaining blog to read.
When you look at the history of presidents, they are always people who tended to come from out of nowhere. FDR was the VP candidate who lost to the biggest landslide in American history. No one thought he would come back. Who was this Truman guy? And once he assumed office after FDR died, NO ONE thought Truman would win the election. No one thought Nixon would become president after his defeat with JFK. And who is Jimmy Carter? Everyone, at the time, thought Senator Kennedy would be president. NO ONE thought Ronald Reagan, that B rated actor, would ever become president let alone having such an impact. In 1992, everyone thought the race would be between Bush and Cuomo. But Bill Clinton came from nowhere and NO ONE thought Clinton would win (due to the affairs and all that had come out about him). Just recently, Hillary Clinton was the favorite to win the 2008 D nomination. This Obama guy shows up, nearly out of nowhere, and takes it from her.The future presidents will be brand new people we haven’t heard about. Historians have noticed the pattern that the outsider of Washington tends to be the favorite to become president. This is also why presidents tend to be governors and not senators.
After every single election, someone says, “Is this a re-alignment? I think it is! Yeah! Re-alignment!” That person is always a member of the party that won that election cycle. I’d ignore all that talk. Re-alignment means the destruction of a political party machine in some massive war or economic catastrophe. We’ll know it clearly when we see it unfold before our eyes.