You're far from alone in the Canadian infiltration department. I'm another.

Did you hear, a poll out today says 15% of Canadians would trade their vote in the next Federal election for a vote in the US Presidential one.

I'd be pretty tempted to take that trade if it were offered.

I would greatly appreciate your take on this.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/4/11358/61771/199/449317

I'm ambivalent about this debate.

Krugman has a point. Obama's starting point isn't true UHC and since whatever he runs on would likely get watered down by Congress and more Harry and Louise ads, it's a fair critique of Obama.

On the other hand, Hillary will have her own disadvantages trying to pass UHC in America too.

But my real source of confusion about this is the prospect of a game-changing election brewing. If 2008 becomes another 1932, the Democratic president could find themselves in a position like FDR after 1932: Where the range of what is politically possible has expanded far beyond what they campaigned for.

Then the question is, will either of them have the courage or inclination to run for the endzone having made a breakaway, or will they stop at the 20 yard line and take a knee to avoid getting tackled?

There are fair reasons to believe either Hillary or Obama will succeed or fail to get meaningful health care reform under the current mode of operation in DC. I tend to lean towards Obama, because I do think he has more potential to change the landscape such that all the rules we live under about what is and is not feasible politically change. Hillary will not be nearly so bad as her critics on the left allege, but Obama has more potential.

But it is a gamble. I don't fully trust Obama. I don't believe in him, but I'm hopeful the dream is real and his supporters are right.

There are other ways UHC can come to America. In Canada it started with a poor and underpopulated prarie province that no one pays much attention to. Picture North Dakota having UHC. The model catches on and momentum grows. If 5 states have successful UHC programs, could a national program be stopped?

I can't help but gloat that in the Democratic community, there is a vigorous policy debate about the merits of Obama and Hillary's health care plans.

I can't but be pleased about that. Seeing people go point by point over the dry substance of mandates and caps and funding and risk pools is awesome.

On the other side, they're voting for John McCain, who they despise, because he can "beat the bitch." The Republican nomination has been the most amazing display of pathology and bigotry from America's right in some time. The Religious right bolted to Huckabee because they can't stand Mormons or McCain. The Establishment split between said two-talking Mormon with great hair and a balding gay rights supporting ultra-neo-con who has all the right crisis mismanagement skills the modern GOP seeks. Meanwhile, McCain sneaks up the middle based solely on not being the others, and absolutely loving wars. The only real requirement to win as a Republican.

And for substantive debate on the right, their policies actually proclude debate. What debate is there to have when the only "solution" they have to every problem is tax cuts? They make a show of it, trying to trump each other on their command of voodoo economic bafflegab over which taxes to cut by how much, and which vital social programs to gut, but it's not really a debate as much as body builders at the beach flexing competitively to impress the girls walking by. The republicans heard the phrase "race to the bottom" and jumped, and when falling wasn't fast enough, they start air swimming.

And yet here we have characters accusing people who note the differences between the two parties as being paid agents of those parties.

That was a pretty fair historical synopsis of the past 20 years. I particularly like your description of 1994.

As to your last paragraph, I hope you're wrong and fear you'll be right. At the moment, voters still favour Democrats by double digit margins in congressional races. With 28 Republican house flies dropped (And counting) and 22+ R seats up in the Senate, the Democrats seem almost certain to make gains.

If you're right, they'll make moderate gains. 2 or 3 in the senate, 5-10 in the house. Not enough to really change the status quo, and for those paying attention, a genuine rebuke of the Democratic party.

Or, they'll take a chance and vote in 6-10 Democratic senators and 15-30 in the House along with a Democratic president and the party will have no more excuses.

So the question seems to be, will it be 1992 again, with a non-mandate win, or 1932, and the sky's the limit?

I'm not sure if there are more than one "anonymous" working here, but the posting styles seem very different, so to the one who wrote:

And maybe Ondolette as well would agree that as the Overton Window of political possibilities gets dragged to one extreme or the other, it doesn't matter which, the relative perceived differences of the two parties must undergo some form of statistical compression. Think the Bell Curve of distribution.

As the Window gets dragged back to the center of gravity and equilibrium, perceived differences in the two parties will become more pronounced. It is one of the drawbacks of the current system that they will tend to be more alike than not. If they weren't, we'd be on the verge of civil war. Does this sound right to you?

This is insightful. It makes intuitive sense at least, and explains the phenomena of the seeming decrease in meaningful difference between the parties at times of ideological domination by one of them.

Ramifications of applied Overton theory. I like it.