Candidate Positions on Amtrak/HSR

To assuage some of the "Der tod des Amtrak" thoughts expressed at this topic, this Wisconsin poll should be encouraging:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/2 ... 64361.html

While it can hardly be said "so goes Wisconsin, so goes the Nation", it would appear that there will be "oh; four more years of that'. Although Wisconsin is hardly representative of an electorate national in scope, lest we forget that Wisconsin voters sent a mighty strong anti-Obama message last November - the stillborn HSR initiative hardly the full extent of such.

At national level, it would appear a case of "who do you want to believe":

Rove?

http://rove.com/articles/323

Nader?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-2 ... nader.html

A GOP President does NOT mean Amtrak's demise. Amtrak has survived 4 Republican Presidents, and numerous spells of GOP control (working or actual) of Congress at the same time as a Republican President, and during those times it's sometimes fared better than under some Democratic Presidents (such as Carter).

The Wisconsin poll is really close. Obama won the state in 2008 by around 10 points. If he's ahead there by only a few points, it's not looking good for him nationally.

When Mr. Romney was governor of MA. he built the Sagamore Flyover highway project but did nothing to support the return of rail service to Cape Cod, on existing tax funded tracks. (Although Gov. Patrick has made no move on this front either).

SouthernRailway wrote:

Gilbert B Norman wrote:To assuage some of the "Der tod des Amtrak" thoughts expressed at this topic, this Wisconsin poll should be encouraging:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/2 ... 64361.html

While it can hardly be said "so goes Wisconsin, so goes the Nation", it would appear that there will be "oh; four more years of that'. Although Wisconsin is hardly representative of an electorate national in scope, lest we forget that Wisconsin voters sent a mighty strong anti-Obama message last November - the stillborn HSR initiative hardly the full extent of such.

At national level, it would appear a case of "who do you want to believe":

Rove?

http://rove.com/articles/323

Nader?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-2 ... nader.html

A GOP President does NOT mean Amtrak's demise. Amtrak has survived 4 Republican Presidents, and numerous spells of GOP control (working or actual) of Congress at the same time as a Republican President, and during those times it's sometimes fared better than under some Democratic Presidents (such as Carter).

The Wisconsin poll is really close. Obama won the state in 2008 by around 10 points. If he's ahead there by only a few points, it's not looking good for him nationally.

And in much more crucial Ohio he's polling far ahead of 2008, plus the Dems just had a romp of an election night there, clobbering Kasichs unionbusting signature legislation. Anyone putting too much emphasis on polling from a single state a year out might very well be in for a rude awakening.

The difference for Amtrak under a possible GOP president this time is that the Republican congressional majority (if such one exists after 2012 elections) is much farther to the right. Partly because the party's northeastern delegation is close to extict, and partly because there's a demand for ideological purity from the grassroots, that did not exist under Bush or Reagan. So even if both of them tried to kill Amtrak, republican congressmen sympathetic to Amtrak were able to protect it. Today fewer are sympathetic and the political cost of going against the party line is much greater for the ones who are. Add an economic crisis that will bring almost any government programme under consideration for cuts.

I'm not certainly not sure Amtrak will be protected from "all evil" under a Democrat majority, and I'm not sure Amtrak will be killed under republican rule. But I'm sure Amtrak will survive in some form under the Democrats, and I also think that there is a real risk that a coming Republican administration with the majority to back it up will be the end of at least Long Distance trains in America....

May I point out one thing. Romney is from MA, we are known for politicians doing stupid things.

Mbta fan wrote:May I point out one thing. Romney is from MA, we are known for politicians doing stupid things.

Bah, you folks have no monopoly on that!

Greg Moore wrote:

Mbta fan wrote:May I point out one thing. Romney is from MA, we are known for politicians doing stupid things.

Bah, you folks have no monopoly on that!

Just merely pointing out the obvious, that everyone overlooks. We have Deval Patrick for governor(mistake), had Mitt Romney as governor a few years ago(another mistake). I think that's enough said today.

It's worth noting the record of national politicians with regard to Amtrak:

1. Nixon (R): establishes Amtrak
2. Ford (R): little action, LSL reinstated
3. Carter (D): massive cuts (Floridian, Nat'l Limited, NC Hi, et al...)
4. Reagan (R): Claytor "golden" years; big equipment order(s)
5. Bush I (R): P40 order
6. Clinton (D): massive cuts (Desert Wind, Pioneer, Cape Codder, et al...); big equipment order
7. Bush (R): Gunn years (forget M&E profits, focus on passengers)
8. Obama (D): Big talk on HSR, no action; big equipment order

On a state level:

1. Recent (R) governors in WI and FL have turned down funding for rail
2. Schwarzenegger's tenure in CA saw Amtrak/CA flourish
3. Daniels, (R) Indiana, did little for Amtrak but presided over a 20% bump in South Shore's fleet.

The point of this post is not to argue the particular merits of one politician. The point is to illustrate that Amtrak support CLEARLY DOES NOT FOLLOW PARTY LINE.

We've had people from both sides support Amtrak, and we've had people from both sides attack Amtrak. If you post a follow-up to this post, and you attack one particular politician, you're missing the point. The point is a politician will say what people want to hear (and probably go a bit overboard), then use Amtrak as a bargaining chip like they always have. In other words, there's very good chance presidents don't lose sleep over Amtrak.

Tadman wrote:We've had people from both sides support Amtrak, and we've had people from both sides attack Amtrak. If you post a follow-up to this post, and you attack one particular politician, you're missing the point. The point is a politician will say what people want to hear (and probably go a bit overboard), then use Amtrak as a bargaining chip like they always have. In other words, there's very good chance presidents don't lose sleep over Amtrak.

In this context, it's worth remembering how, mechanically, the President gets elected. The Presidency is won by winning the Electoral College, i.e. winning states. Both Pennsylvania and Virginia are considered important swing states this time around. Both states are also pro-Amtrak. No candidate in the general election is likely to take a position that completely alienates the citizens of those states.

Also, while it's true that the center of gravity of the American population moved south and west at the last census (as it has in every census since 1790), there are still a LOT of people in the Northeast. The 12 Northeast Corridor states (I'm including the northern three New England states here, in light of the Vermonter, the Ethan Allen, and the Downeaster) have a combined population of 70-odd million. That's 23% of the population of the country: more votes than any politician is going to ignore.

Site Admin: A few notes to help out:

Ocala Mike wrote:He was speaking to a Tea Party crowd, wasn't he? Mr. Romney is famous for tailoring his "convictions" to who is listening. Nobody knows what he would actually do to/for Amtrak if elected, not even him (which is why he won't be elected).

Thank you Ocala Mike. This is a great example of referencing the Tea Party in a fashion related to the topic without engaging in hyperbole' or ad hominem attacks. It's a great testament to this forum that none have appeared as of yet (that I've seen, anyway). This goes both ways, left, right, center, and shortstop.

2nd trick op wrote:First, let me add my voice to those who believe that threads such as this one have to be permitted if this forum is to have any relevance; almost all of us here have attained enough maturity to carry on such discussions with restraint and respect, thanks largely to the hard work of a series of great moderators.

We agree. This is not because we disagree with any past styles of moderation. I understand Otto's extreme dislike of politics where railroads are concerned. Plus, we thank you for the compliment, and agree with the advice of restraint and respect. As long as the politics are railroad-related, we're good.

Tadman wrote:Mod Note:

Thanks for your good manners in this discussion. This could get out of hand fast, so a friendly warning: Please continue to mind your manners or we'll lock this one up real quick-like. On a related note, I noticed something interesting last week: We are one of the few high-traffic forums Jeff didn't post a "cut the crap" sticky at, and I've never once issued an official warning in 2-3 years of moderating. Thanks very much to everybody for their good manners and tact.

Also, NellieBly gets the forum award of the week for quoting Steely Dan's IGY. I have done the same (maybe not at RR.net but I know I have) and it's the best quote ever.

Amen. The "cut the crap" threads are actually good reading for posting etiquette. I've done them in LIRR and NJT. It's like a bunch of cliqy high school girls in those forums sometimes.

gprimr1 wrote:Let's make sure we keep our discussion focused on railroads. There are some posts here I'm going to sleep on editing because they are talking more about the financial situation and spend vs cut policy and not about trains.

Reminder to our members; posts may be edited at any time for reasons posted in the TOS. Greg and Tad's notes above are well stated. Let's keep things on an even keel and railroad related. If you have any questions about the moderation, PM Tad or Greg, or email me at [email protected]. We try to leave a note when we edit something, or send a PM, but we don't always get to it.

That said, should we update the title to cover more candidates' positions?

Ridgefielder wrote: In this context, it's worth remembering how, mechanically, the President gets elected. The Presidency is won by winning the Electoral College, i.e. winning states. Both Pennsylvania and Virginia are considered important swing states this time around. Both states are also pro-Amtrak. No candidate in the general election is likely to take a position that completely alienates the citizens of those states.

I'd add to that observation that both state government's, especially Virginia, are supportive of funding their rail services. Part of the argument has to be about the role of the federal government vs. the state government in supporting rail.

Tadman wrote: The point of this post is not to argue the particular merits of one politician. The point is to illustrate that Amtrak support CLEARLY DOES NOT FOLLOW PARTY LINE.

What he said!

Seriously, Amtrak is if any color purple. Politicians will support it regardless of party if it furthers their needs (which often, but not always may correspond with their state's needs.)

Tadman wrote: We've had people from both sides support Amtrak, and we've had people from both sides attack Amtrak. If you post a follow-up to this post, and you attack one particular politician, you're missing the point. The point is a politician will say what people want to hear (and probably go a bit overboard), then use Amtrak as a bargaining chip like they always have. In other words, there's very good chance presidents don't lose sleep over Amtrak.

If you're talking about candidates, I'll agree. I think it's fair to criticize (or praise) a politician for actual actions committed. But in general I'll agree. Right now, most candidates will say what their listeners want to hear.

BTW, I will point out that as much as Bush would submit "zero out Amtrak's budget" he never really seemed to fight that hard for it, even when members of his own party would vote for money for it. So, actions speak louder than words.

Greg Moore wrote:

Tadman wrote: The point of this post is not to argue the particular merits of one politician. The point is to illustrate that Amtrak support CLEARLY DOES NOT FOLLOW PARTY LINE.

What he said!

Agreed.

And the fastest way to kill Amtrak is to link supporting it with being a Democrat. Making Amtrak a partisan issue will guarantee that it'll lose the support of one of the two parties.

Not only that, once the "NO" party gets the presidency and the congress, Amtrak is going away. Once it goes away, you are not going to see it come back. Amtrak had a mandate to start because the freight roads were going broke running passenger trains yet lots of people still didn't fly or drive. That mandate is long gone, as the Class Is are prosperous and America takes SWA everywhere.

CAUTION: extensive use of metaphors in "quotes".

My take as an observer is Amtrak will never go away, nor will even the part of it that is subject to the most scorn, the LD's. It took a 100-year hurricane to even get one of the LD routes truncated, and Amtrak won't, for whatever purposes you an ascribe (route preservation, or avoidance of req'd notice), officially cancel the route.

Even for those who hold libertarian views on the role of government, Amtrak, while symbolic, is too small a nugget to spend a lot of political capital on. They'll pay homage to "the cause" (i.e. fund or defund) but there are much bigger fish to fry. Even in the thrice-weekly routes there are too many MP's (oop's; members of Congress) in Amtrak's national footprint to ever get rid of it. And it's a large footprint.

Likelier is pawning some of the routes off to the states who "like" rail service and operate their routes under an Amtrak banner. This could be NC, VA, the NEC states, IL, etc. It would have to be death by a "thousand cuts".

In short, this type of position is merely a "stalking horse" or "strawman".