The 2012 elections.

I should probably talk about the elections, shouldn't I? Given the massive effect the outcome is likely to have on the world.

They're actually really interesting. The current incumbent is out of time, so he can't hold onto his seat – which means that prejudices against the current office holder are going to be less important. The new candidates are going to have to deal with the country's recent economic issues, as well as the rather poor international reputation they currently enjoy and...

What? Well Iran, of course. What did you think I was talking about? You don't want Iran? Fine then, the other big power exchange.

It's actually really interesting. The current incumbents are out of time, so they can't hold onto his seats – which means that prejudices against the current office holders are going to be less important. The new candidates are going to have to deal with the country's recent economic issues, as well as the rather poor international reputation they currently enjoy and...

Oh for Heaven's sake! If you don't want me to talk about China or Iran, what do you want me to talk about? America? Really? Well, um, OK then.

It was actually really interesting. The last incumbent was out of time, so he couldn't hold onto his seat – which means that prejudices against the current office holder were going to be less important. The new candidates were going to have to deal with the country's recent economic issues, as well as the rather poor international reputation they currently enjoyed and...

America 2012, you say? But that's just boring. Obama wins, end of story. Can I go back to sleep now?

OK, OK, I'm being a little factitious. But, really, not by that much. The presidential race is, I think, pretty much over at this point. Romney has to do so much better than Obama in the swing states that I just can't see it. So, it's borderline possible for Romney to win, but without something massive, it doesn't look likely. And, frankly, Romney just doesn't seem like the kind of exceptional 'candidate who can fire hearts and minds' that it might not be wise to write off even now - not with so few undecided voters, and no more massive opportunities to influence things. Regardless of the man's policies, I simply cannot see any realistic way of there ending up being a Romney presidency, from a statistical perspective. Assuming, of course, moderately accurate poll-y thingies. And having looked into the methodology an things, I genuinely can't see it being too inaccurate. So currently I can't really see anything other than a second Obama term, and the results aren't massively interesting to me.

Which is not to say that the race itself isn't interesting. Obama's performance in the first debate, compared to the next two was good to look at*. And the anger of some parts of the media over a moderator's 'interference' in a debate was fascinating. Actually, watching as a foreigner who's not entirely familiar with the format, I kinda assumed that this was a recognised function of the moderator – Obama had just told her to check the transcript, and she had done so, thus cutting off an incredibly useless like of argument, giving more information to the electorate, and just in general improving the debate. Now, I can kinda see the point, in that whilst the moderator was undoubtedly correct in what she said (as far as I can see), she also did it only once, which could be argued to be selective and lopsided, when other cases exist where such interference could have taken place with equal clarity. Which is why I would argue that a rule like that, which allowed a candidate to actually call for the checking of a fact which is generally unarguable but upon which the candidates cannot agree, might actually be a significant improvement. I don't know, I'm not American, it might just bog down the debate, but I'd think that the candidates themselves would end up working to avoid that happening.

And then there's the Republican party. Remember, Willard Romney was picked as the compromise candidate. The moderate one who they'll go with to try to get the election. Which means that when the 'moderate'** candidate fails, the conclusion is that clearly going for the moderate center ground isn't a winning strategy. OK, OK, that's not really the logical conclusion, but I'm pretty sure that's the way they're going to go. And I'm pretty sure it's not going to work...

Well, I hope it's not going to work, anyway. But then there are a few possible results. The newly extreme republicans could come to their senses. But I doubt it. There could be a split into 'real' and 'moderate' republicans. The Tea Party could leave in disgust. The moderates could leave in disgust, and either form their own party, or join the Democrats. The party could just keep travelling right in a quest for ideological purity, and be seen no more in the fields we know.

Here's the problem, though. Most of that leaves the Republicans not looking like viable challengers to the Democrats. And one party politics tends not to last too long in FPTP systems***. Opposition naturally arises. So the obvious answer would be the magical rise of one of the third parties – the greens might come up, forcing the Democrats to the right. Or you could get a revitalised Libertarian party. Anything could happen. I sorta doubt it, though. To me, those parties just don't seem strong enough to take on the Democrats nationally, or to steal the loyal base of the Republican party. My gut feeling would be that the more moderate wing of the Republicans split off (or are forced out), and whilst they might join the Democrats for a brief while, the Tea Party probably aren't going to get any saner, which will leave the Democrats both dominant, and rather schizophrenic. So I'd guess that the right of the Democratic party will split off, get together with the moderate Republicans, and form a whole new party. Which will have an easier time getting support than the third parties did, because they'll have existing bases to draw upon, and because they'll quite naturally and neatly fall right in the middle of the two old parties. And because a loyal Republican who doesn't like the Tea Party will have a lot easier a time transferring support to a new party which can honestly claim to be their successors.

Now, I could be completely wrong. I think the most likely alternative is that the left of the Democrats get so disgusted with the party's betrayal of their principles that they split off, possibly merging with the more popular left wing parties, and make a challenge of their own, campaigning as the 'real' Democrats. But I don't think there's the same feeling of betrayal there, and so I don't think it'll be so easy for the new party to gain traction – especially when they risk being compared to the Tea Party.

The interesting thing is that both of these would quite naturally move the entirety of American politics to the left, since the gap between the Democrats and the new party would be left of the current gap between the Democrats and the Republicans.

So, yes, my analysis of the Tea Party is that I think they'll actually end up with America moving to the left. I could be completely wrong, but I think that kind of irony is as good a place as any to stop.

*As someone who does a lot of debating, minor opinion aside here – this is why when I'm debating to an audience, I always always have a pen. And scribbling furiously with one is a decent way of responding to an opponent's point without really 'responding'. It distracts audience attention from the person who's actually speaking, and it plants the idea in the audience's head that you've got a response, that it's not really so clear cut, and that they're only hearing one side of the story. Even if you already have your response prepared, and you're just doing underlining and circling. Or even sorting out your shopping list. I'm not saying that Obama should have done the writing thing, but the general tactic of keeping yourself in the audience's mind while the opponent speaks, and making it clear that you actually disagree is a vital one. I could go on dissecting the presidential debates speaking all day, but it seems kinda redundant, so I'm limiting myself to just that point.

**Let us, for the moment, ignore whether or not Romney really counts as moderate. It really isn't too relevant.

***I have the word 'Japan' on my desk, but I'm not sure why. Possibly that was where it was made.