<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Election forecast</title>
	<atom:link href="http://bennett.com/blog/2006/11/election-forecast/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://bennett.com/blog/2006/11/election-forecast/</link>
	<description>A regular old blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 23:51:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Richard</title>
		<link>http://bennett.com/blog/2006/11/election-forecast/comment-page-1/#comment-363131</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Nov 2006 03:05:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bennett.com/blog/index.php/archives/2006/11/06/election-forecast/#comment-363131</guid>
		<description>California&#039;s born-agains tried to pass a parental notification for abortion initiative, which failed on the same ballot that re-elected Gov. Schwarzenegger by a wide margin. There was no real gun rights or gun control on the ballot anywhere this year, but there was a huge package of bond measures - 37 billion worth - that passed in California. 

I don&#039;t doubt that more trouble is looming in Iraq, and that will certainly be the case until there&#039;s a political solution. I didn&#039;t see any progress toward that in the last three years, so it&#039;s not like &quot;stay the course&quot; has any credibility left. Bush has no clue, let alone a plan.

California is pretty much a microcosm of the US, with everything from the richest stretch of farmland in the Central Valley to conservative San Diego and Orange County to liberal Frisco and LA. Two recent presidents have hailed from the Golden State, both were Republican, and neither was a religious nut. California voters legalized medical marijuana and decriminalized other drugs, banned gay marriage and affirmative action, and refused to raise taxes on cigarettes and oil. What a great state it is.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>California&#8217;s born-agains tried to pass a parental notification for abortion initiative, which failed on the same ballot that re-elected Gov. Schwarzenegger by a wide margin. There was no real gun rights or gun control on the ballot anywhere this year, but there was a huge package of bond measures &#8211; 37 billion worth &#8211; that passed in California. </p>
<p>I don&#8217;t doubt that more trouble is looming in Iraq, and that will certainly be the case until there&#8217;s a political solution. I didn&#8217;t see any progress toward that in the last three years, so it&#8217;s not like &#8220;stay the course&#8221; has any credibility left. Bush has no clue, let alone a plan.</p>
<p>California is pretty much a microcosm of the US, with everything from the richest stretch of farmland in the Central Valley to conservative San Diego and Orange County to liberal Frisco and LA. Two recent presidents have hailed from the Golden State, both were Republican, and neither was a religious nut. California voters legalized medical marijuana and decriminalized other drugs, banned gay marriage and affirmative action, and refused to raise taxes on cigarettes and oil. What a great state it is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Robertson</title>
		<link>http://bennett.com/blog/2006/11/election-forecast/comment-page-1/#comment-363129</link>
		<dc:creator>James Robertson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Nov 2006 02:16:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bennett.com/blog/index.php/archives/2006/11/06/election-forecast/#comment-363129</guid>
		<description>1) California is not the rest of the US

2) I don&#039;t recall guns coming up much at all in California

3) Either way, I&#039;d like to see your response to my initial comment</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>1) California is not the rest of the US</p>
<p>2) I don&#8217;t recall guns coming up much at all in California</p>
<p>3) Either way, I&#8217;d like to see your response to my initial comment</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard</title>
		<link>http://bennett.com/blog/2006/11/election-forecast/comment-page-1/#comment-363110</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:51:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bennett.com/blog/index.php/archives/2006/11/06/election-forecast/#comment-363110</guid>
		<description>It seems to be more a question of corruption, incompetence, and hypocrisy. We&#039;re just not interested in a lot of fear-mongering from Rummy and gay-hating from the likes of Pastor Haggard.

Republicans did well in California running on the issues I outlined.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems to be more a question of corruption, incompetence, and hypocrisy. We&#8217;re just not interested in a lot of fear-mongering from Rummy and gay-hating from the likes of Pastor Haggard.</p>
<p>Republicans did well in California running on the issues I outlined.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob Smith</title>
		<link>http://bennett.com/blog/2006/11/election-forecast/comment-page-1/#comment-363107</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:36:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bennett.com/blog/index.php/archives/2006/11/06/election-forecast/#comment-363107</guid>
		<description>Do you honestly think the Democrats won on issues like:

&quot;stuff like the environment, infrastructure, low taxes, and health care.&quot;

It&#039;s the war, stupid, to paraphrase the Clinton team....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Do you honestly think the Democrats won on issues like:</p>
<p>&#8220;stuff like the environment, infrastructure, low taxes, and health care.&#8221;</p>
<p>It&#8217;s the war, stupid, to paraphrase the Clinton team&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Robertson</title>
		<link>http://bennett.com/blog/2006/11/election-forecast/comment-page-1/#comment-363040</link>
		<dc:creator>James Robertson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Nov 2006 16:37:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bennett.com/blog/index.php/archives/2006/11/06/election-forecast/#comment-363040</guid>
		<description>You missed a couple things here.  First, it looks like the Dems will go with Pelosi.  Second, the Dems are the ones who&#039;ve dropped gun control - they&#039;ve realized that it&#039;s the same level of loser as attempting to force abortion bans.  

Finally, I expect the Dems to have some real unity problems.  Conyers is going to go full bore for impeachment hearings, and that will work out just as well for the Dems as the Republican windmill tilts at Clinton went.  

Ultimately, the next two years will probably see something like this:

-- a ton of pointless investigations, just like 1996-1998
-- IF the Dems force a withdrawal from Iraq, you&#039;ll see a bloodbath across the middle east of epic proportions.  The nascent Shia/Sunni conflict that is mostly contained now (due to our presence) will explode and Iran (Shia) and the Sunni powers (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, et. al.) vie for influence in Iraq.  Watch Turkey take advantage of the chaos by leveling the Kurds in northern Iraq, in order to silence their own restive Kurds.

In short, a withdrawal will look like Cambodia after Vietnam, but with the true joys of nuclear weapons and religious zealotry added to the mix.  Look at the history of the 30 years war in Central Europe for a notion as to how that will go.  Mind you, while that&#039;s happening, oil prices won&#039;t drop.

The next two years will likely be legislative gridlock and fairly nasty foreign issues.  I seriously doubt the ability of the Democrats to deal rationally with the foreign issues.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You missed a couple things here.  First, it looks like the Dems will go with Pelosi.  Second, the Dems are the ones who&#8217;ve dropped gun control &#8211; they&#8217;ve realized that it&#8217;s the same level of loser as attempting to force abortion bans.  </p>
<p>Finally, I expect the Dems to have some real unity problems.  Conyers is going to go full bore for impeachment hearings, and that will work out just as well for the Dems as the Republican windmill tilts at Clinton went.  </p>
<p>Ultimately, the next two years will probably see something like this:</p>
<p>&#8211; a ton of pointless investigations, just like 1996-1998<br />
&#8211; IF the Dems force a withdrawal from Iraq, you&#8217;ll see a bloodbath across the middle east of epic proportions.  The nascent Shia/Sunni conflict that is mostly contained now (due to our presence) will explode and Iran (Shia) and the Sunni powers (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, et. al.) vie for influence in Iraq.  Watch Turkey take advantage of the chaos by leveling the Kurds in northern Iraq, in order to silence their own restive Kurds.</p>
<p>In short, a withdrawal will look like Cambodia after Vietnam, but with the true joys of nuclear weapons and religious zealotry added to the mix.  Look at the history of the 30 years war in Central Europe for a notion as to how that will go.  Mind you, while that&#8217;s happening, oil prices won&#8217;t drop.</p>
<p>The next two years will likely be legislative gridlock and fairly nasty foreign issues.  I seriously doubt the ability of the Democrats to deal rationally with the foreign issues.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.221 seconds -->
