While it is true that Obama campaigned in 2008 as a Progressive guy who was going to do the opposite of what Bush had done to us, then took a hard right into worthless 'Moderatism', to put him in the same league with Romney as a "terrible person" is pretty silly. Even if Obama's only real hope is to keep us from going to the Right again for four more years then that is worth celebrating.

He was never that progressive, a ton of liberals pretended he was for whatever reason (race, age, etc.). He is a center-right candidate globally and a Clinton-esque center-left candidate in America and always has been. Why? Because no candidate outside the center can get elected in America. We have two parties and you win by pandering and meeting in the middle, you govern by compromise and meeting in the middle.

It's why reforms are slow, social issues are solved by the Supreme Court and we have a ton of fucking bickering.

It won't change unless we adopt a more diversified party system like most of Europe has. That will either take forever or never happen though, because a) most Americans are scared of or judgmental of Europe, and b) the two parties we have now don't want it.

Was there any difference between them anyway? Congrats to Obama. One tip now: you can't say "It was my predecessor's fault" anymore ;P

I was told this is the one the Puerto Rican statehood party used. It would never happen, but it's a neat idea to go back to the colonial style circle.

You were a union of states. It is not the 19th century anymore. The issues and problems are becoming global. For a proper focus of power, you need a single united nation, not a bunch of bickering leftovers from the last century. China is on the rise, and it will take the united power of Europe, Anzac and the US to contain it.

Son of bitch... Maybe China will front the bill?

6 rows, 9-8-9-8-9-8. It's the only real solution, and it'll look very similar to our current flag.

Bah! Self-ninja'd!

Disagree. I think the myth of Republicans being better at economic/fiscal issues has been pretty widely debunked over the last 20 years. I think Obama got re-elected because people honestly worried about the chasm between the wealthiest and the middle class getting any wider and more of our jobs being sent to China, India and Mexico and the %1 refusing to reinvest into the economy (through a proper progressive tax system) while our roads and bridges and schools fall apart.

I think in every way that matters globally we have already transitioned into one voice. Internally though you would have a long, hard road to take to convince people we need to abandoned states' rights and state diversity.

I don't really disagree with you, and I think it's a shame Kansas can abolish teaching evolution for example, but it's in our DNA and will take a long time to change, if ever. I can promise you as Puerto Rico looks to become a state they are banking on being able to keep a lot of their local government, language and customers in place.

This, although this European political diversification is a bit of a myth. Maybe it applies in France, where you really do notice a pronounced difference between the UPR and the Socialists, but when it comes to the Tories and Labour in the UK or the CDU and SPD in Germany, you're talking six of one or half a dozen of the other - the problem is no different than in the US.

Ugh, I would go with concentric circles of 13, 17, and 21 stars. Or, maybe 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.

There is a difference for sure. Having health insurance or not having should make a pronounced difference and there is more. But what I don't understand is how voters can favor Obama over Romney but not change the majorities in the Congress too. Sounds like they can't decide what they really want or they love checks and balances to a point where it becomes gridlock.

Anyway congratulations to Obama. If I recall local polls here, >80% here would have elected him and I think the US will be better off with him too. I only wish next time media would concentrate more on facts and if there aren't any, just not write or say anything. That would help greatly in setting the importance of both parties in the political world right. I think the two big parties, but especially the GOP, is currently extremely overvalued and getting much more attention that they deserve. There are for sure other parties with more interesting points that are worthy to be discussed.

And those global issues will be tackled by the federal government.
Things like roads, building permits and the like will be handled by the state and local governments, like they've been since the beginning. Congress can barely handle its own job, there's very little reason to give them more power and more responsibility to try and create one-size-fits all legislation that will indubitably chafe on everyone (like No Child Left Behind). The US is the most diverse country on the planet by a very wide margin, and there's no way for the federal government to handle everything by itself cleanly.

Just love how everyone conveniently ignores what the Republicans actually did to the economy and characterizes anyone who points out the harsh reality as "blaming the predecessors"...as if we were the Miami Heat blaming Jim Crow politics for not winning more NBA titles or something. Most economists I heard from said there was no President who ever lived who could have fixed our economy in less than 8-10 years but some people believe 4 years was plenty.