A Progressive Surge?
Only flat-earthers, as epitomized by The Nation, could take a narrow Obama victory (getting fewer votes than John McCain in 2008 and losing 10 million voters) and call it A Progressive Surge.
Mark Steyn offers a more realistic take on the Obama surge:
In the course of his first term, Obama increased the federal debt by just shy of $6 trillion and in return grew the economy by $905 billion. So, as Lance Roberts at Street Talk Live pointed out, in order to generate every dollar of economic growth the United States had to borrow about five dollars and 60 cents. There’s no one out there on the planet — whether it’s “the rich” or the Chinese — who can afford to carry on bankrolling that rate of return. According to one CBO analysis, U.S.-government spending is sustainable as long as the rest of the world is prepared to sink 19 percent of its GDP into U.S. Treasury debt. We already know the answer to that: In order to avoid the public humiliation of a failed bond auction, the U.S. Treasury sells 70 percent of the debt it issues to the Federal Reserve…
That’s a more accurate description of the progressive/regressive surge: increased federal debt, government misinvestment, and the Ponzi scheme that pays for it.
To lean on one of the left’s intellectual leaders, it’s the government spending, stupid. Things that can’t continue forever won’t.