For one thing, elections are NEVER won by default (again, see: Kerry, John. )

Boll weevil Dems never really came back, nor will. That was the "Southern Strategys" final payoff so less said the better; hopefully 2008 put that thinking with its fellows on historys rubbish heap.

Maybe not a true mandate, but I think it's safe to say universal healthcare polled a lot better in November '92 than summer of '93 despite the fact the government hadn't actually DONE anything (sound familiar?) I still remember the insurance industries media barrage of "husband and wife" actors discussing the terrors of having health insurance that actually provided effective and affordable healthcare. It's stunning to see how quickly a little ad money can convince the public they don't want what they said they did.

You are entitled to believe what you wish, but other developed countries have the same life saving/extending procedures we do; they just tend to be more accessible to people with little or no private insurance in those countries, and saying that people there wait for weeks or months for non-critical care they couldn't receive AT ALL here doesn't change that. It makes for nice rhetoric, but while people ARE rushing over the Rio Grande for medical care they can't get at home, at such a rate it's breaking the system, they're going TO Mexico, not FROM it.

I can pretty much guarantee you Obamas mandate wasn't "limit my damage award when medical incompetence kills my only bread winner. " The whole bipartisan thing is getting a little tired; when a minority Senator is sending out emails that completely ignore the issue or possible reforms, but urge other members to "make healthcare Obamas Waterloo" it's kinda hard to think the failure is just Democratic stubbornness. Especially when it's the same GOP that got those Dem votes for "PATRIOT" and the IWR by daring Democrats to vote against it. Again, if the loyal opposition doesn't like the majoritys proposal, make a better one (which was the great failing of Kerry et alia. ) We just recently discussed the far greater tendency of liberals than conservatives to break with their party; liberals usually want "change" which can be defined myriad ways, but there aren't many variations on "keep everything as it is now. "

Unfortunately, "reform" from the latter usually means eliminating previous intended remedies rather than addressing any of the problems that created them. Again, I find it interesting that most of the "downsize government" crowd sees to see the only valuable healthcare "reform" to be the federal government interfering with citizen juries in civil trials (which incidentally flies in the face of the spirit if not (necessarily) the letter of the Seventh Amendment. ) There are much better ways to stop private insurers raising malpractice insurance premiums (and consequently healthcare costs) then ALSO raising healthcare premiums as a direct result. I'm well aware how high a priority industry friendly tort reforms are for the GOP, not just in healthcare, but across the board, but just because they're trying to use the real demand for healthcare reform as a Trojan horse to advance that agenda doesn't mean they suddenly care about HEALTHCARE (rather than tort) reform. It's funny how we keep hearing about evil trial lawyers like John Edwards representing individuals and never hear a word about FIRMS of evil trial lawyers on retainer just WAITING for the call to come fight them.

It wasn't just "a" poll, it was everyone of which I'm aware. And I was tracking a LOT of them, with help doing so from EVP. In fact, given that EVP does its projections by averaging all published polls (except partisan ones like PPP and Strategic Vision) and giving extra weight to the most recent, and given their election day projection had Kerry winning FL by the 5% he lost it by, it's probably best to let the matter of "fuzzy math" slide. Kerry ran a SORRY campaign, right up till the end, when, despite promising for months that "every vote will count and every vote will be counted" he conceded while OH (and thus the Presidency) was still very much in doubt.

I have. Repeatedly. The way he's conducted his personal life in the past few years is shameful and disappointing, but he's a mill workers son who earned his college degree rather than being a legacy like Bush and Kerry, and made his professional career representing people injured by incompetence and negligence, facing and beating the various firms of evil trial lawyers the responsible parties dialed up to contest that.

Try looking at HDI, which factors both the metrics you cite (plus literacy rates. ) You may debate how it weights each one, but it's not ignoring any. We're not number one; we're number thirteen and FALLING (Norway is number one, because Iceland, almost as a nation, got suckered into that laissez-faire Ponzi scheme with high risk mortgages, and suffered the same fate as everyone else involved, without the benefit of a US government bailout. ) In other words, our standard of living is NOT still higher than most Western European countries or Canadas, and hasn't been for some time. That may not play well with the jingoists, but it's documented fact. When I say "slipping relative to theirs" I mean "theirs is higher AND rising faster" not "ours is still higher but theirs is rising faster. "

The Western European living standard isn't rising RELATIVE TO AMERICA because of WWII; they got hurt a lot worse than we did, and while the Marshall Plan got them back on their feet, it was well after that they began overtaking and then passing us. It's rising relative to ours and over all because while ours is, I believe, rising, theirs has long been rising more and continues doing so. Because their government policies continue to evolve and develop in the model of the much vaunted "liberal Western democracies" while America did the very thing that Europe did to allow us in front to begin: Hunkered down, buried our heads in the sand and insisted that as long as we didn't change the world wouldn't either and we'd stay on top. GDP/capita is higher in most Western European states than here (Norways PPP is about $7000 higher than ours; their nominal GDP/capita is TWICE ours. ) Life expectancy is about a year more. This despite a wave of immigration from former Eastern Bloc and African countries. Saying "oh, but their populations are lower" doesn't really mitigate that, because it amounts to saying an area with 33% more people but 5% the area can provide a higher standard of living with local rather than federal socialism. More people, less resources, less income, higher PPP GDP/capita and longer live expectancies. Maybe the way we've done things for 150 years needs updating (note: Returning to how we did things in the '20s doesn't count as an "update." )

Part of loving ones country is look elsewhere objectively and being big enough to steal a good idea or two. That's why the Germans stole tactical support bombing from us in the teens.