Who should America vote for?
The US presidential election is of course open to US citizens only. But as the President is the de facto leader of the world, people in almost every country follow the election, and have a view on it.
Link TV have set up a site where people can send a message to American voters. Lots of interesting voters there.
I would ask American voters to choose a US president who will tear down trade barriers, and who will pressure Europe to lift their trade barriers so that families in Africa get a better chance of lifting themselves out of poverty, by not having their exports blocked by EU and US protectionism.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: 2008 US Presidential Election, United States
April 15th, 2008 at 11:06 am
My guess is that this initiative will not be warmly embraced by American voters, lol.
April 15th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Imagine a McCain presidency.
It’s easy if you try.
April 15th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Sounds like you’re a Ron Paul fan Mr. Farrar.
April 15th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Does this include trade barriers with Cuba, DPF, given your touching concern with the effects of the same?
April 15th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
My expectations are pretty low, I’d just ask for a President who can comb his own hair…………
DPF your desire to see ‘families in Africa get a better chance of lifting themselves out of poverty’ is really touching.
April 15th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
francis, back before the last US election, some pommy media jacked up a huge postcard campaign from their readers to random people across the US, begging them not to vote for George W., and I remember that the Yanks didn’t like THAT. The bit I remember most vividly was the reply that came from one Yank to the Brit who’d sent the postcard…… it began “Dear Limey Asshole……….”
April 15th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
But seriously, it is very stupid of the rest of the world to be calling for a US President and government that is less pro-active where military threats are concerned. Remember the last time the US couldn’t be bothered with what was going on in the rest of the world? The 1930’s? Jolly benign strategic environment the world was then, eh?
April 15th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Free Trade with the US is a pipe-dream: there are simply too many vested interests within Washington. It’s also gone beyond vested interests to being pretty much political poison over there: the electorally critical rustbelt of Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania have been screaming for the last decade and a half about NAFTA.
As for Ron Paul, who does want to tear down trade barriers, there’s the small problem that he wants to tear down the WTO as well (and reintroduce the gold standard, and a bunch of other stuff that is the domain of nutty libertarianism).
April 15th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
I agree, PhilBest, many Americans are mean-spirited, inward-looking and lack the capacity for self-reflection. (Not all though.) I remember when I worked on Capitol Hill, my colleagues thought it such a joke to say, “Let’s nuke Noo Zealand.”
April 15th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
wow I had no idea is was that easy to end poverty in Africa! LOL
I would encourage voters to go McCain, simply because he’s the only sane choice.
April 15th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
What’s nutty about the gold standard? I’d rather have currency backed by something real than by future tax earnings…
April 15th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
“I would encourage voters to go McCain, simply because he’s the only sane choice.”
You do realise that with the more moderate judges on the Supreme Court getting a bit on the elderly side, it’s very likely that a McCain presidency would be a grave threat to Roe vs Wade and a woman’s right to an abortion?
Or that with the US slipping into its most serious economic crisis for at least thirty years, McCain has openly admitted that he doesn’t have a clue about economics?
Or that McCain, who wants to keep US troops in Iraq for “a hundred years” thinks Iran (a nation of Shiite Muslims) is backing Al-Qaeda (a Sunni Muslim organisation)?
Or that McCain still hasn’t decided whether condoms help limit the spread of sexually transmitted diseases?
McCain is rather more sane than the other Republicans he faced on the road to the nomination, but that isn’t saying much.
April 15th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
“What’s nutty about the gold standard? I’d rather have currency backed by something real than by future tax earnings…”
The Gold Standard is, to put it mildly, far too inflexible for the demands of a modern economy.
April 15th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Is that enough mindless Democrat talking points for you meerkat? Come on, I’m sure you have more….
And if, by inflexible, you mean governments can’t just pull money out of their arse when things look a bit rough, I’m not sure that’s the sort of flexibility any modern economy needs. And you can watch America’s economy tank further as proof.
April 15th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Hey Blair, I do too! Don’t forget McCain’s forays into science…
“One of our all-time favorites, made famous a number of years ago, is money that was spent to study the effect on the ozone layer of flatulence in cows,” McCain said in 2003. “One always wondered about the testing procedures used to determine those effects on the ozone layer.” (Washington Post, 10 March 2008)
That great American patriot Bill Maher recounted last Friday: “You know, they had hearing this week about Iraq – did you see this – with General Petraeus and everybody. And John McCain had another senior moment—[laughter]—where he couldn’t remember who the Sunnis are, the Shiites…I’m beginning to worry about this guy. They asked him afterwards if this would affect his presidential campaign, and he said, “I’m running for president?” [laughter]
April 15th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
I remember when I worked on Capitol Hill, my colleagues thought it such a joke to say, “Let’s nuke Noo Zealand.”
I’ve just figured out your main problem – you lack a sense of humour. I take it you didn’t make many friends when you were in the US?
April 15th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Gosh Bevan, you just figured that out? Not the fastest on the block, are you?
Actually, you’ll find a little humour in my previous post, though it may not be to your liking.
April 15th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
“Is that enough mindless Democrat talking points for you meerkat? Come on, I’m sure you have more….”
Blair, could you kindly demonstrate the inaccuracies of my comment? McCain has actually said those things, you know.
BTW, I’m hardly a fan of the Democrats (a collection of jellyfish if ever there was one). It’s just that the modern Republican Party, to use a NZ analogy, has more in common with the National Front than National, and the Democrats are the only thing standing in their way.
Oh yes, and it’s Democratic talking points, not Democrat talking points. Democrat is a noun, not an adjective.
April 15th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
No point. The few people I know in USA are staunch Republicans.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
The “a hundred years” thing was he’d be *willing* to keep troops there if it’s in their interest, such as in Korea.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
There is no choice, the dems will wishwash themselves and the US into a lather……there will be columns of smoke if Obama is elected, and a bitch fest if Hilary is elected, so McCain is the only choice, at least you know what your getting…..more of the same
April 15th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
“It’s just that the modern Republican Party, to use a NZ analogy, has more in common with the National Front than National”
For example?
April 15th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
good luck to meerkat with that one…
April 15th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
decadentmeerkat- lets go through your points
1) Abortion. Yes, but abortion is not a right, it is murder. In fact McCains pro-life position is the main reason why I support him, as I want to see Roe overturned, and I hope a McCain presidency will help achieve this. However, he will still have to get his nominees through a democratic senate.
2) Economics. So Barack Obama is an economic expert? Obama has no economic experince at all, but that hasn’t stopped him from attacking McCain for his faults (see http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7010514973 ). At least McCain was honest when he said ( I think this is the quote you are refering to) “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should” and indicated he would pick a vice-president with a good economic background to help balance the ticket. Its McCains stright talk that I also like about him (although he isn’t perfect, and has done some flip flops).
4) Iraq, read http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/hoping_for_100_years.html for info on the 100 year lie. As for the Iran/Al Qaeda issue, he misspoke.
5) HIV/aids and condoms. Condoms could help, instead of hinder the spread of HIV/aids and other STDs if they encourage people to have sex with an HIV infected person in the belief condoms make them bulletproof, where they wouldn’t otherwise have done so.
“It’s just that the modern Republican Party, to use a NZ analogy, has more in common with the National Front than National” I agree that the US Republican party is more right-wing than National here. But they are not rascist bigots.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Whilst we keep having a nuke free policy it dont matter whose the Pres of USofA NZ will continue to get punished and most of the citizens wont even know it.
the Yanks have longer memories than a elephant and iot dont matter whether their Dems of Reps they stick together like shit to a blanket when a smuck country like NZ tries it on.
Hate to think of the billions of lost trade over the past 23 years. Just like the AIA decision last week you cant quantify what you dont get from those who dont tell you to your face.
You jusy gotta look at other countries who do much better and think If only
April 15th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Redbaited, we know that you’re just on another redbaiting expedition here.
We could, for example, point to the numerous studies done of the Republican southern strategy (e.g., Aistrup, Joseph A., The Southern Strategy Revisited: Republican Top-down Advancement in the South, Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky), but you’d just respond with another of your preposterous mock outbursts and deny everything flat. You’re already on record as denying the existence of the Republicans’ southern strategy, so why bother?
Have to admire your gamesmanship though.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
It’s just that the modern Republican Party, to use a NZ analogy, has more in common with the National Front than National, and the Democrats are the only thing standing in their way.
And you get the award for posting the biggest crock of shit today! Seriously, do you have any evidence to back that up? Or have you been watching too many Micheal Moore crockumentaries?
April 15th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
On the subject of Roe versus Wade my understanding is that if it was overturned then the legality of abortion laws would go back to the various State legislatures.
Roe versus Wade was an example of the Supreme Court overturning the laws of the State governments and imposing the right to an abortion across the whole country.
So if the Supreme Court decision was overturned, and I think it should be because it was a blatant example of the Supreme Court overstepping its powers and making law rather than interpreting it, then abortion would not automatically become illegal.
I imagine it may become illegal in more conservative States (such as Utah?) and continue to be legal in more liberal ones (such as California?).
April 15th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
We could, for example, point to the numerous studies done of the Republican southern strategy (e.g., Aistrup, Joseph A., The Southern Strategy Revisited: Republican Top-down Advancement in the South, Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky), but you’d just respond with another of your preposterous mock outbursts and deny everything flat. You’re already on record as denying the existence of the Republicans’ southern strategy, so why bother?
Looks like that train of thought has already been called into question jafapete, and by the NY Times of all people!
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html
April 15th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
No, Bevan, wrong again.
The article in NY Times was about the book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism”, with which I am very familiar. Essentially it argues that the white voters in the South moved to the Republicans (at the federal level in particular it has to be said) for economic reasons, and not because the Republicans had spent decades pandering to their racism. It doesn’t say that the Republicans did not spend decades pandering to their racism. Rather, that there were other factors driving the voters’ behaviour.
The point that was made by decadentmeerkat was about the Republican Party’s racism, remember, not Southern voters’.
Chapter 2 (entitled “The Rhetoric of the Southern Strategy”) of the book that I cited earlier systematically decodes the expressions that the Republicans used in their race-based appeals to the white southern voters. You probably wouldn’t understand what “states’ rights”, etc, mean, but the southern voters surely did, and so did the Republicans using this language.
When I worked in Washington my neighbour, who was Jesse Helms’ Special Assistant, used to tell me off for calling African Americans “Blacks”, and not using the N-word. So don’t tell me Republicans aren’t racist. (Which is not to say they all are, or that some Democrats aren’t racist.)
April 15th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Scott
You are correct – if a more conservative majority occured on the Supreme Court under a McCain Presidency the overturning of Roe v Wade would simply return abortion law to the pre-1973 status quo ie each State’s legislatures and judiciaries deciding state abortion law and liberal states on the east and west coast would maintain legality, purple states would tighten laws and more conservative states would likely be more restrictive. An interesting aside – the woman at the heart of Roe v Wade is now staunchly anti-abortion and makes her views known publicly but the left leaning pro-abortion media give her no air time lest their meme be interrupted by her inconvenient honesty.
Americans don’t take kindly to other democracies telling them how to vote. The attempts by the British media to plead with swing voters in Ohio to vote for Kerry in 2004 went down like a cup of cold sick.
The MSM in the US (and outside the US) routinely misread the mindset of flyover country because they largely reside in elite urban enclaves like Hollywood and Manhatten. They cheered for an effette urban liberal like Kerry and couldn’t understand why he was defeated. The same mistake is happening with Obama and his supposedly private meeting with millionaire donors at the Getty Mansion in San Francisco where he dissed rural Pennsylvanians for clinging to God and guns shows Obama has a classic urban liberal elitist tin ear that will become the narrative the GOP will use to easily define and then defeat him.
jafapete
Very few Americans I have met fit your rather nasty characterisation. Perhaps living in Washington DC you don’t get to see as much of the real America as you could have.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
KIA, I have travelled through 37 states over the years, and spent goodly amounts of time in Florida, California, Colorado and Louisiana, to name a few.
I try to avoid generalisations about “Americans”, because the differences between, say, mid-westerners and southerners, is huge. So my comments were restricted to southerners and the Republican Party’s exploitation of the widespread racism in parts of white, southern society. In the aggregate.
Have you ever spent much time in the southern states? More to the point, have you ever talked to any African Americans in the South about their experiences? Do you know what the term “states’ rights” signifies?
April 15th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Yeah I hardly think a good ole boy like Jesse Helms (or his staff) is particularly representative of the Republican Party, especially since he is in his 80s and retired. Democrat and former Klansman Robert Byrd, however, is currently third in line to the Presidency. Scary but true.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
The article in NY Times was about the book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism”, with which I am very familiar. Essentially it argues that the white voters in the South moved to the Republicans (at the federal level in particular it has to be said) for economic reasons, and not because the Republicans had spent decades pandering to their racism. It doesn’t say that the Republicans did not spend decades pandering to their racism. Rather, that there were other factors driving the voters’ behaviour.
Actually jafapete, not wrong – you are just blinded by your opposition to anything you don’t agree with. Your mind is so focussed on republican = bad, therefore you try to label tham as one of the worst labels ever imaginable, as a racist. I wonder if you can remember which American politician once lameted that they wanted to be the choice for guys with confederate flags on their pickups…. Now where has that particular person ended up I wonder?
The point that was made by decadentmeerkat was about the Republican Party’s racism, remember, not Southern voters’.
Based on a conspiracy theory without a shred of evidence……
Chapter 2 (entitled “The Rhetoric of the Southern Strategy”) of the book that I cited earlier systematically decodes the expressions that the Republicans used in their race-based appeals to the white southern voters. You probably wouldn’t understand what “states’ rights”, etc, mean, but the southern voters surely did, and so did the Republicans using this language.
Hard for me to discuss a book I have not read, or would read. So I’ll take the word of a heavily Left Wing news source that called into question the type of thinking that book is based on. Sorry but when Im presented with an opinion, in this case that The republican party is racist, I look at it from a broad view point – in this case I googled and read a few articles for a few opposing view points, and also thought of the high level black politicians in american politics in the last few administrations (I can think of two from Bush’s two terms, but not one from Clinton’s two terms). Sorry not gonna take the word of an obscure author of an obscure book.
When I worked in Washington my neighbour, who was Jesse Helms’ Special Assistant, used to tell me off for calling African Americans “Blacks”, and not using the N-word. So don’t tell me Republicans aren’t racist. (Which is not to say they all are, or that some Democrats aren’t racist.)
Well you could make up any shit couldn’t you, but it doesnt make it true. Considering you’ve already fallen into the Repube = racist line and trying to convice all and sundry that is the case what would you expect?
April 15th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
You know, I spent 10 years working in DC and don’t recognise anything from auckland pete’s anecdotes. State’s rights did have, at one point, a very strong association with de jure racism in the context, especially, of school integration. But not for forty years. Now it has a lot to do with how some states dislike the Federal agenda on a wide range of things. It’s about local, versus Federal, control. Not really much of a problem in a country like New Zealand. But if auckland pete had travelled quite as much as he claims in America, he’d know how diverse it is – and how a term like “state’s rights” doesn’t always signify covert racism.
And, by the way, Nixon’s “southern strategy” (which is the best known use of that term) was to advise the leadership of states south of the Mason Dixon line that he’d expand the school integration mandate to states in the north and west – and thereby dilute the integration fervor in those states – in return for votes. In implementation, it did cause quite a stir, especially in places like Boston – but integration continued anyway.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Bevan,
A cheap imitation of Redbaiter, but nowhere near as good. He’s the master of incoherent bluster designed to provoke and cover the lack of an argument.
The absence of anything in your response other than empty bluster simply underlines your inability to produce any evidence whatsoever in support of the impossible position that the GOP has not been exploiting, or attempting to exploit, the racism of white southerners for some decades.
April 15th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Bevan,
A cheap imitation of Redbaiter, but nowhere near as good. He’s the master of incoherent bluster designed to provoke and cover the lack of an argument.
The absence of anything in your response other than empty bluster simply underlines your inability to produce any evidence whatsoever in support of the impossible position that the GOP has not been exploiting, or attempting to exploit, the racism of white southerners for some decades.
So no debate, just resorting to denigration? Classic! BTW, you are the one making the accusation here – therefore you are the one who needs to provide evidence – you don’t just expect everyone to stand open mouthed and declare you the most intelligent man in the world and beleive every word you say do you?
BTW, it seems Francis and BlairM (who seem to know first hand more on the subject than me it loks) have disagreed with your point – but I notice you are avoiding them…..
April 15th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Okay Francis, perhaps you might explain the connotations for the edification of the kiwis here of Kentucky Congressman Geoff Davis (Rep) calling Obama “boy” last week?
Edit: Oh, and then explain why a couple of weeks ago Republican state Rep Greg Delleney in South Carolina killed a resolution that would have removed a statue honouring “Pitchfork Ben” Tillman, one of America’s foremost white supremacists, from the South Carolina State House grounds. And what did he mean that Tillman was “a man of his times, honoured by the people of his times”?
April 15th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
“The point that was made by decadentmeerkat was about the Republican Party’s racism, remember, not Southern voters’.”
Already covered this weak arsed bullshit propaganda a week or so ago. Demolished it as easy as Che Guevara would blow the head off a Cuban farmer, and as quickly as the old time Democrats would have lynched a recalcitrant slave in Mississippi. Don’t keep regurgitating the same old same old, its painful enough reading such tired old fantasies the one time.
April 15th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Gee Bevan, I’m so sorry, but there are no substantive points in your response that I could possibly respond to.
Do take another look at what you wrote, and note the denigration that you indulged in, and ponder whether a response like yours deserves anything better than the response that it got.
April 15th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
BTW jafapete, apart from you getting upset that I dont agree with your point – I’d love to hear your take on the American politician who wanted to be the candidate for “guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks.”
You seem to have skipped that part…..
April 15th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
For the education of Francis, who is correct that “states’ rights” as a racist code word is now longer current, here’s a commentary from the right-wing Time magazine about the racist legacy of the GOP.
The sad truth is that many Republican leaders remain in a massive state of denial about the party’s four-decade-long addiction to race-baiting. They won’t make any headway with blacks by bashing Lott if they persist in giving Ronald Reagan a pass for his racial policies.
The same could be said, of course, about such Republican heroes as, Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon or George Bush the elder, all of whom used coded racial messages to lure disaffected blue collar and Southern white voters away from the Democrats. Yet it’s with Reagan, who set a standard for exploiting white anger and resentment rarely seen since George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door, that the Republican’s selective memory about its race-baiting habit really stands out.
Space doesn’t permit a complete list of the Gipper’s signals to angry white folks that Republicans prefer to ignore, so two incidents in which Lott was deeply involved will have to suffice. As a young congressman, Lott was among those who urged Reagan to deliver his first major campaign speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers were murdered in one of the 1960s’ ugliest cases of racist violence. It was a ringing declaration of his support for “states’ rights” — a code word for resistance to black advances clearly understood by white Southern voters.
Then there was Reagan’s attempt, once he reached the White House in 1981, to reverse a long-standing policy of denying tax-exempt status to private schools that practice racial discrimination and grant an exemption to Bob Jones University. Lott’s conservative critics, quite rightly, made a big fuss about his filing of a brief arguing that BJU should get the exemption despite its racist ban on interracial dating. But true to their pattern of white-washing Reagan’s record on race, not one of Lott’s conservative critics said a mumblin’ word about the Gipper’s deep personal involvement. They don’t care to recall that when Lott suggested that Reagan’s regime take BJU’s side in a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, Reagan responded, “We ought to do it.” Two years later the U.S. Supreme Court in a resounding 8-to-1 decision ruled that Reagan was dead wrong and reinstated the IRS’s power to deny BJU’s exemption.
April 15th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Oh, in case people have forgotten, Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott (Republican) lost his job as Senate Majority Leader (no less!) after praising the segregationist presidential campaign of Strom Thurmond. He said that if Strom Thurmond were elected President in 1948 the country would not have the problems that it is having today. Perhaps someone would like to explain what he meant by that?
April 15th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
I’ll ask again: I’d love to hear your take on the American politician who wanted to be the candidate for “guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks.”
You seem to be avoiding this question jafapete……..
April 15th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Yep, Howard Dean said in 2003, “I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks. We can’t beat George Bush unless we appeal to a broad cross-section of Democrats.” Unfortunate choice of words by the man, given that we all know what the flag represents in the South. And in the end GWB got the guys with the confederate flags anyway.
Interestingly, you’ll still find the confederate flag flying in the grounds of the South Carolina state capitol. It was removed from the State Capitol itself only in 2000. An account of this is revealing:
Inflammatory remarks by (Republican) state senator Arthur Ravenel made national headlines in Jan. 2000 when he defended the flying of the [Confederate flag], referring to the NAACP as the “the National Association of Retarded People.” He then apologized to “retarded people” for associating them with the NAACP. At the time of the the February Republican presidential primary, party differences on the issue were thrown in sharp relief: the Republican contenders declined to take a stand except to say that the issue was a state matter; the Democrats were outspokenly against the flag remaining.
Oh dear, does the extreme right-wing rhetoric remind you of anyone in particular? It has to be admitted that the Republicans controlled the state legislature when the flag was removed to the grounds, but it’s still there.
PS Not avoiding the question, just needed to go out and get a latte now the rain’s died down.
April 15th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Nicholas:
“1) Abortion. Yes, but abortion is not a right, it is murder. In fact McCains pro-life position is the main reason why I support him, as I want to see Roe overturned, and I hope a McCain presidency will help achieve this. However, he will still have to get his nominees through a democratic senate.”
I personally think abortion is an ugly thing, but the alternative – of letting individual states outlaw it again – is worse (what is, say, a pregnant 19 year-old in Louisiana to do under that situation? Go for a backstreet abortion and risk her own life? Force her to trek across country to a state where it is legal?). You are right that McCain would have to get his nominees through a Democratic Senate, but the past record of the Democrats is that they tend to have less party discipline than the Republicans, and a number of Democratic Senators (e.g. Casey in Pennsylvania) are pro-life to start with.
“2) Economics. So Barack Obama is an economic expert? Obama has no economic experince at all, but that hasn’t stopped him from attacking McCain for his faults (see http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7010514973 ). At least McCain was honest when he said ( I think this is the quote you are refering to) “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should” and indicated he would pick a vice-president with a good economic background to help balance the ticket. Its McCains stright talk that I also like about him (although he isn’t perfect, and has done some flip flops).”
Obama seems to be running more on “judgement” than “experience” (well, he pretty much has to, given that he’d get hammered otherwise). His criticism of McCain is not so much about McCain’s inexperience in economics so much as McCain’s Hooverseque fish-out-of-water handling of economic matters of critical importance.
As for McCain’s supposed “no bullshit” approach, I’d have respected him a lot more if he hadn’t spent the last few years licking the boots of the very people who shafted him during the race for the Republican nomination in 2000 (you may recall that the Bush campaign ran a push-polling smear in South Carolina that said McCain had an illegitimate black child, when the child had actually been adopted by McCain and his wife). McCain’s borderline Stockholm Syndrome relationship with the Republican Establishment is just depressing.
“4) Iraq, read http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/hoping_for_100_years.html for info on the 100 year lie.”
The problem is that American troops stationed in South Korea haven’t spent the last half-century getting blown up and shot at. Committing US troops to an apparent war without end in the vain hope that the situation will calm itself down isn’t really a viable course of action.
“As for the Iran/Al Qaeda issue, he misspoke.”
He’s made the claim multiple times.
“5) HIV/aids and condoms. Condoms could help, instead of hinder the spread of HIV/aids and other STDs if they encourage people to have sex with an HIV infected person in the belief condoms make them bulletproof, where they wouldn’t otherwise have done so.”
If people don’t have access to sex education and the associated protective paraphenalia, they will still be having sex – just much more dangerous sex. I have no problems with abstinence being presented as a perfectly viable option – it’s just that abstience-only education (of the sort promoted by the Bush Administration) is both irresponsible and dangerous.
“I agree that the US Republican party is more right-wing than National here. But they are not rascist bigots.”
In recent times they’ve had the likes of Senator George “Macaca” Allen (a fellow with a sick-and-genuinely-creepy obsession with the Confederacy, right down to having a noose in his office), Senator Trent Lott (a guy who reckons the US would have been so much better if die-hard segregationist Strom Thurmond had won the 1948 election), Representative Tom Tancredo (the sort of guy who would be kicked out of NZ First for being too extreme on immigration), Senator Rick Santorum (the guy who is on record as stating that homosexuality is akin to beastiality), Representative Steve King (a guy who thinks that the election of Obama would cause Al-Qaeda to start dancing in the streets because Obama’s middle name happens to be Hussein), and Representative Michele Bachmann (who believes that if the US doesn’t immediately ban gay marriage, all public schools will start teaching homosexuality).
Those kind of bigots would, I hope, have no place in the New Zealand National Party. Similarly, I would hope the Nats here would not condone torture, imprisonment without trial, rampant militarism, and illegal government spying – all of which have been practiced by the Bush Administration. One thing I will say in McCain’s favour though is that he is at least anti-torture – though unfortunately for him, many in the Republican Base seem to think he’s a sell-out because of it.
April 15th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
jafapete
I’ve met blacks from the South. Terrible racist things happened. Like most lefties, you stick to the meme that is was always racist Republicans driving this racism. You forget that until the 1980’s, the south was dominated by Democrats at the Federal and State level. The viciously discriminatory Jim Crow laws were enacted and sustained by Democrat majorities across the south for decades. Lyndon Johnson had to turn to north eastern Republicans to pass the landmark Civil Rights Act in 1964 to overcome the block voting of southern Democrats who united to defeat this attempt to further empower black voters.
You want to see racism in action in politics, look no further than the Democrat Primary currently underway. Clinton attracts white, blue collar workers and the elderly with very few blacks whilst Obama attracts urban educated liberals and blacks in overwhelming numbers. Bill Clinton has played the race card on several occasions whilst the Obama supporters threaten a mass walk out at the Denver Convention if the super delegates somehow vote for Clinton over Obama and overcome his pledged delegate lead invoking the spectre of racist sentiment driving such an outcome. Shock disc jockey Don Imus loses his job and must prostrate himself before the likes of Revs Sharpton and Jackson for calling black basketball players “nappy headed hoes” – words less offensive than the frequent use of the n word used by black rappers. Obama’s spiritual mentor utters the vilest and most devisively racist remarks imaginable and the left excuses him as being misunderstood and misquoted. To preach that the US Government sponsored the spread of AIDS or illicit drugs amongst the black population or to claim that Israel developed an Arab only bomb are preposterous but the fear of being labelled racist silences reasonable critics of such outrageous falsehoods.
April 15th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Hi Decadentmeercat, I have to say that, on reflection, I’m not sure that I entirely agree with your assertion that, “It’s just that the modern Republican Party, to use a NZ analogy,has more in common with the National Front than National.”
Do the words “one nation”, Brash, Orewa, dogwhistling ring any bells? Maybe the GOP, National and the National Front have more in common than you allow for. What do you think?
April 15th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
KIA,
Wrong again. Never said any of those things that you impute to me because I do have some knowledge of the subject. I was careful to say earlier, of Republicans, “Which is not to say they all are [racists], or that some Democrats aren’t racist.”
A friend on Capitol Hill was a senior legislative assistant to Jacob Javits, a liberal Republican, and he would never have dreamt of using the n-word. Sadly, the liberal Republicans are now an even tinier minority and the vile neocons and religious right run the GOP.
When Reagan came to power it was clear who was in charge. Went to a party at my neighbour’s house (the one who worked in Helms’ office), most of the people were from the (Apartheid-era) South African Embassy, NRA, Heritage Foundation, etc. The really scary thing is that they sounded like some of the weirder members of the kiwiblog right. I thought I’d be safe from that type of extremism in NZ, but now I’m beginning to have my doubts…
April 15th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
jafa
You said ” the Republican Party’s exploitation of the widespread racism in parts of white, southern society” – that is the comment I was referring to. Using as your benchmark one of Jesse Helm’s staffers whom you met at a party in Washington DC is hardly a balanced basis on which to judge Republican party attitudes. Democrats like to portray themselves as somehow being more pure on the issue of race and love to tag the GOP as the racist party. I was merely challenging that view as hypocritical. It is good to see that your views are somewhat more nuanced than the usual kiwi left leaning observer of matters American.
April 15th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
KIA,
But the Republicans did exploit the racism of many Southern whites over many years, after these voters became disillusioned with the Democratic Party, precisely because the Democrats introduced and passed (with the help of some of the liberal Republicans) civil rights legislation. This is commonly known as the “southern strategy”.
You obviously didn’t spot on an earlier thread: I actually worked for the RNC. As I sit here typing I still have the brass elephants (oops, cue for D4J to tell me what to do with them) that they presented me when I left, sitting on top of my bookshelf. I also worked as a volunteer on GB Snr’s campaign in Alexandria, which was where I lived. Sadly, for the party of Abraham Lincoln, things changed in the GOP for the worse when the radical right took charge with Reagan.
Meercat, another one for your list is Barbara Cubin (R-WY):
On April 9, 2003, Cubin said on the House floor, “My sons are 25 and 30. They are blond-haired and blue-eyed. One amendment today said we could not sell guns to anybody under drug treatment. So does that mean if you go into a black community, you cannot sell a gun to any black person, or does that mean because my …” Representative Melvin Watt, (D-N.C.), who is black, interrupted and demanded that Cubin retract the statement. Cubin said that she did not mean to offend her “neighbors” on the Democratic side, and maintained that her comment was within House rules. (Wikipedia)
April 15th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
so..kia..in your narrow/deluded world..is hillary still gonna win..?
remember..?..you told us wright would sink obama..?
didn’t happen..
in fact pennsylvania is deemed to be clintons’ ‘last chance’..
if she dosen’t win big there..it is all over..
and as i told you months ago..
it’ll be obama vs mccain..
you’ve been wrong wrong wrong ’till now..
and you’ll be wrong again..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 15th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Blair:
“Democrat and former Klansman Robert Byrd, however, is currently third in line to the Presidency. Scary but true.”
Byrd is 90, and context is everything. His membership of the KKK was as a 24 year-old in the early 1940s, and he then dropped out after a couple of years. When he was first elected to the Senate (1958), racism was the norm among what was then the wall-to-wall Democratic South. He has since apologised for his past many, many times, and nowadays gets 100 percent ratings from the NAACP.
Personally I find Dick Cheney being first in line for the Presidency much, much scarier than Byrd being third-in-line.
April 15th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Amazing ain’t it the way that leftists label anyone on the right a hater for merely daring to express an opinion that challenges leftist doctrine, and here’s Deadarse Meerkat and his sycophantic little pal Jafaboy lying and smearing and sliming Republicans in the most vicious contemptible and cowardly manner, and apparently its perfectly acceptable. Leftists- no end to their intolerance and bigotry.
April 15th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
aww..!..reddy..your getting all plaintive..
are you feeling ‘got at’..?
like your leader..?
do you need a ‘diddums!’..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 15th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Another penetrating, point-by-point demolition of communism from Redbaiter. You tell ‘em dude.
April 15th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Foreign endorsements of US presidential candidates are the kiss of death for their campaigns. In a country where less than 20 percent of the population have passports and more than fourty percent have never traveled more than 500 miles from their birthplace, do not underestimate the insularity and xenophobia of many US voters. Thus, for your general amusement, I leave you with this one true story to ponder: a Barack Obama fan club has just been set up by some of his old primary school mates (back when he was known as “Barry,” and no, it was not a madrassa) in Indonesia. How long do you think it will take before this becomes a Fox news talking point?
April 16th, 2008 at 2:51 am
philu
In your cannabis addled state, you must have failed to read various posts of mine where I have stated that I remain agnostic as to the victor of the Democrat Primary and on more than one occasion, have mused that Obama is likely to be the nominee. I now prefer him to win because, with each passing day, he becomes more unelectable in the General Election. Clinton will win PA and probably by more than 10% given Obama’s latest insult delivered in the cloistered environment of San Francisco uber liberals. My cheering on Clinton is merely to see her continued campaign inflict as much damage on the party as possible. The Clintons still believe that Hillary has a better chance against McCain and their vaulting ambition means they stay in the race. Their strategy is simple, expose Obama for the hard left inexperienced softie who will get munched by the GOP with the hope that the super delegates will override the popular vote and elect her. Her line is “I’m seasoned and can fight the great right wing conspiracy, my negatives are out there and well known and I have more experience”. Billary are fighting the headwind of a MSM that is still enamoured of Obama and isn’t really taking the gloves off. Yesterday, at the trial of Tony Rezko in Chicago, a key witness for the prosecution revealed that Obama was indeed at the party Rezko held for indicted Iraqi fraudster billionaire Nadhmi Auchi – something Obama has denied several times. Obama claimed Rezko only donated $50k to his campaigns then, on the eve of his trial, suddenly ‘remembers’ that is was $250k. It turns out that Obama did not merely seek the endorsement of famous Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers back in 1995 when he was trying to get elected to the IL State Senate, he appeared on the same stage with him at a forum on urban crime in 2002 whilst campaigning for the US Senate. This is a man (with his equally extreme wife) who actually bombed the Pentagon and other US Government targets in the early 70’s and to this day is an utterly unrepentant terrorist and says he would do it again. Hmm – imagine the media frenzy if it turned out that John McCain had shared the stage at a forum with an indicted right wing fanatic but for Obama – chirping crickets from the NY Times and co.
No phil, you keep cheering Obama on. I’m only cheering on Hillary because her stubborn refusal to quit sets the Dems up for a bruising convention in August that can only aid the GOP. Obama’s ‘Bittergate’ remarks will merely widen the margin of her victories in PA, IN, KY and WV and narrow his likely victory in NC further prolonging the Dem’s agony. I’m actually rather enjoying the show and wonder how many more unforced errors your man is capable of before wiser heads in the party realise what a George McGovern/Michael Dukakis/John Kerry look their man has. In case your cannabis addiction has obliterated that part of your memory: McGovern lost 49 – 1 in ‘72, Dukakis lost 40 – 10 in ‘88 and Kerry lost 31-19 in ‘04 all men cut from the same liberal left leaning cloth as Obama.
April 16th, 2008 at 3:01 am
And gnadsmasher, your snearing condescension typifies the left leaning elitism of academia, mainstream media and blue state democrats (and sadly many NZers) and is precisely the reason why those groups so grossly misunderestimate the mindset of middle America meaning that Democrats (since Johnson in ‘64) are only elected to the White House when they field centerist candidates such as Bill Clinton (who got a big assist from Ross Perot who split the conservative vote) or a seeming social conservative – bible belt Gov Jimmy Carter.
April 16th, 2008 at 7:05 am
“..My cheering on Clinton is merely to see her continued campaign inflict as much damage on the party as possible..”
interesting admission that you have been deliberately spinning/bullshitting here..all the while pretending/assuming the role of ’serious’ commentator/analyst on the unfolding drama..
(that rustling sound you just heard was everyone turning their backs on you/your words..
we don’t like being ‘played’ like that ..eh..?..)
so..can i speak for everyone when i tell you to ‘just piss off..!”
and just to counter your latest fucken spin/lies..
bill ayers is now a highly-respected teacher at an american university..
who (still) supports direct-action political activism..
and who (still) defends his actions as a valid protest against the horrors america was inflicting on vietnam..
so bloody what..?
all you do..kia..is repeat/regurgitate the latest anti-obama spin from there..
bullshit that i have already seen/dismissed as part of my news gathering activities..
(and as i have noted before..
timing on your part..which is always just behind the main ‘pack’..)
basically kia..you are a feckin’ fool..
and must have been a long time away..
have you forgotten how angry kiwis get when people go ‘nyah nyah..!..i was only bullshitting you..!’..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 16th, 2008 at 7:10 am
It seems to me that Clinton has realized she is unable to win the Democratic nomination and is now focused on the long game: the 2012 elections. If Obama is President in four years time she’ll be out in the cold but if McCain is President he’ll be 76 years old, four more pointless, bloody years into the occupation of Iraq and an effortless target for Democratic nominee. And if Clinton can cripple Obama going into this election she won’t have too much of a fight on her hands winning the nomination next time.
Incidentally, I think its funny that ‘kiwi in america’ – after spending all last year confidently declaring that Mitt Romney would be the next President – thinks his comic but worthless analysis is worth the effort of typing out. Is anybody bothering to read more than a sentence of this drivel?
April 16th, 2008 at 7:52 am
“It seems to me that Clinton has realized she is unable to win the Democratic nomination and is now focused on the long game: the 2012 elections.”
That’s a possibility but from what I’ve read the Clinton camp genuinely believe Obama cannot win in Nov. That’s clearly a self-serving argument to an extent but it may very well turn out to be an accurate assessment. And if you in her position you believe this then it would be your duty to continue to campaign. And following on from this is the view that the Clintons are actually pulling their punhes.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9564.html
It’s all on the speculative side of course.
April 16th, 2008 at 8:15 am
What’s wrong with the gold standard? Currency is a share in the whole economy not just reserves of a nominated “asset” like gold. It gains it’s value according to what the market will pay for it. Nominating an “asset” like gold to back a currency (as seems to be suggested above) ignores the other stuff like good local governance and business conditions. If the foreigners think that the economy has grown and the money supply hasn’t grown at the same rate then all else remaining the same, an existing unit of currency will represent a greater share of the economy, so will be considered to be worth more. Vice versa is Inflation. (There are other factors like interest rates and reserve requirements on lending etc). Ones opinion on the merits of the gold standard is not enough to peg them as republican or democrat. That’s just silly.
April 16th, 2008 at 9:04 am
It seems to me that Clinton has realized she is unable to win the Democratic nomination and is now focused on the long game: the 2012 elections. If Obama is President in four years time she’ll be out in the cold but if McCain is President he’ll be 76 years old, four more pointless, bloody years into the occupation of Iraq and an effortless target for Democratic nominee. And if Clinton can cripple Obama going into this election she won’t have too much of a fight on her hands winning the nomination next time.
Thats your opinion regarding iraq, but from the American friends I have, the majority of those that were opposed to the war in the beginning are now of the thought that to pull out now, when the situation is actually improving would be disastrous for both the US and Iraq and that Obama and Clinton are both trying to clutch defeat from the jaws of victory…
BTW, if you oppose the Yanks remaining in Iraq – do you also oppose the Yanks remaining in Germany and Japan? Originally they were there as an occupation force, not as invited guests. Point to ponder, or convinient memory relapse?
Incidentally, I think its funny that ‘kiwi in america’ – after spending all last year confidently declaring that Mitt Romney would be the next President – thinks his comic but worthless analysis is worth the effort of typing out. Is anybody bothering to read more than a sentence of this drivel?
Regardless of his support for Mitt the mutt, his opinion bears more relevance as someone living in the US as opposed to someone who bases their opinion on what is broadcast on the 6 o’clock news….
April 16th, 2008 at 9:33 am
A little humour that also helps in understanding the real problem highlighted by Obama’s little gaffe. Courtesy of Iowahawk, my favourite line is …..“Is it true what they say?” asked Fleming, the young photographer whom the Post has assigned to accompany me on the journey up-asphalt. “I mean, about the religion, and the cannibalism?”
You can read the complete piece here:
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2008/04/heart-of-rednes.html
April 16th, 2008 at 11:32 am
phil u
You egg – I’ve admitted on several prior occasions my reasons for cheering on Clinton so spare us the shock horror. You huffily state “bill ayers is now a highly-respected teacher at an american university..who (still) supports direct-action political activism..and who (still) defends his actions as a valid protest against the horrors america was inflicting on vietnam”
That’s an interesting take phil because in an interview with Dinitia Smith of the NY Times on, of all days, September 11 2001, Ayers had this to say about his prior activities “I don’t regret setting bombs, I feel we didn’t do enough.”
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B63&scp=1&sq=weathermen
For the record phil, are you telling us that the TWENTY FIVE terrorist bombings committed on US soil by he and the Weather Underground were legitimate forms of anti Vietnam war protest? Clearly you see no problem for Obama appearing on the same stage with a man who stated only a few months before that joint appearance that these 25 bombings were not enough and that he had no regrets. Of course – you’ve covered this issue in your blog and these inconvenient truths are just spin. Keep shilling for Obama mate.
Danyl
Some of the best US political commentators with many more years experience that I did not pick McCain as the nominee so just because I, along with many others, failed to pick the GOP nominee does not means every comment is irrelevant. By that standard, 75% of journalists all over the globe who wrote off McCain should never be read or listened to ever again. Your logic is pathetic. We’ll soon see if my analysis of the Democrat primary race is worthless.
April 16th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
KIA:
“Obama’s ‘Bittergate’ remarks will merely widen the margin of her victories in PA, IN, KY and WV and narrow his likely victory in NC further prolonging the Dem’s agony.”
If you will pry yourself away from Fox News for a moment, Obama’s comments were a condemnation of thirty years of economic neglect by both the two major parties. Because, believe it or not, places like Pennsylvania have suffered from economic neglect (it’s called the rustbelt for a reason), and that the hopelessness of the situation has made it easier for the Republicans to use artifical wedge issues (guns, gays, and abortion) to get poor people voting for the party of the rich. If it is elitist to actually point this out, but not elitist to screw over ordinary people in favour of those at the top of the heap (the hallmark of the Bush presidency), then we really have fallen down an Orwellian rabbit-hole.
By the way, the extended Democratic Primary has a flip-side to it: it is mobilising and energising Democrats, and starving McCain of media oxygen. Just look at the recent party registration figures for Pennsylvania: Democrats are signing new people up at an amazing rate.
“I’m actually rather enjoying the show and wonder how many more unforced errors your man is capable of before wiser heads in the party realise what a George McGovern/Michael Dukakis/John Kerry look their man has. In case your cannabis addiction has obliterated that part of your memory: McGovern lost 49 – 1 in ‘72, Dukakis lost 40 – 10 in ‘88 and Kerry lost 31-19 in ‘04 all men cut from the same liberal left leaning cloth as Obama.”
Oh please. Spotting the flaws in this is like shooting fish in a barrel. As anyone who knows anything about US politics knows, simple “state count” means bugger-all in determining a winner, simply because the likes of California has more electoral votes than Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Nebraska, Kansas, Nevada, New Mexico, Arkansas, Alaska, and Vermont combined. A few hundred thousand votes the other way in Ohio in 2004, and you’d have President Kerry. Gore in 2000 won the popular vote (and, if the Supreme Court hadn’t kneecapped him, the election), despite only winning 20 states. Carter in 1976 won a majority of votes and the election, but Ford won a majority of states. And so on.
As for the three examples you cite, Kerry ran a classic Clintonian centrist/DLC “50%+1″ strategy, and failed because that strategy only works if you (1) win all the swing states, and (2) have Bill Clinton’s charisma (if you’re going to reduce policy differences between yourself and your opponent, you’d better hope that your personality can carry the day). In the end, Kerry actually won swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin, but because he was following the Clinton playbook, he simply ignored all the Red States, and put all his eggs in the one basket of a handful of swing states – some of which he missed. Obama is not following that strategy: he is carrying out Howard Dean’s 50 state strategy to absolute perfection, and making the Republicans spend money they don’t have (Democrats are easily out-fundraising the Republicans this year) on states that should normally be a lock for them.
Dukakis was a guy with Don Brash-level charisma and was an absolute sitting duck for campaign attacks. Obama on the other hand, has incredible charisma, and, as his response to the Rev. Wright issue showed, can not only fight back, but can turn an apparent crisis to his own advantage (Hillary would have simply thrown Wright under a bus; Obama explained why Wright was wrong, while trusting enough in the intelligence of people to explain why people like Wright feel like they do).
McGovern did not enjoy the support of the Democratic hierarchy, had zero crossover appeal among Republicans and Independents, and ran a campaign that was unlucky (Eagleton), ill-conceived (cutting defence spending by a third? Too easy to attack), and the victim of Nixon’s dirty tricks (Watergate). Obama has plenty of support from the hierarchy (not least because most of them are fuming at Hillary’s scorched earth strategy), and has much more (genuine, not Limbaugh-driven) crossover support than Hillary. Plus, his campaign thus far has been incredibly effective in every sense.
If you want to make a comparison, Obama is arguably a Democratic version of Reagan: a guy whose beliefs are solidly on one side of the fence, but is able to express himself in a way that appealed to people on the other side. And if you look at the Senate map for 2008, the potential for a wider realignment like 1980 are certainly there.
Hillary on the other hand is turning into Mondale 1984: an uninspring Establishment candidate who felt that it was “their turn” and who played dirty in order to see off a more charismatic opponent in the primary. And since, KIA, you seem to be such an expert on counting state wins in the general election, you will no doubt be aware how many states Mondale won against Reagan in 1984.
April 16th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
That’s a possibility but from what I’ve read the Clinton camp genuinely believe Obama cannot win in Nov.
I guess that’s what they tell themselves – I’d like to think that Clinton herself is smart enough to realize that at this point, even if the super-delegates decide to hand her the nomination by fiat she still can’t win. The democrats need African-American voters to have any chance and a backroom coup against Obama will almost certainly cause them to stay home in droves come November. The only way she can possibly win this year is if Obama concedes defeat for some unfathomable reason. Her supporters might have some tortured reason for continuing to support her but I’d argue that the only reason she continues to spend so much time and money on a doomed campaign is to position herself for 2012.
April 16th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
“I guess that’s what they tell themselves…”
self-serving I agree but not necessarily wrong. I’ve seen the argument made quite a few times and not by the Clinton camp –
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/mccains_electoral_college_math.html
Obama does well in states the Dems won’t win whereas Clinton does better than Obama in states the Dems need to win. And Florida is there once again on centre stage. Obama won’t win Florida – Clinton might. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/florida.html)
If you look at the popular vote so far – (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html) and include both Michigan and Florida then Obama’s lead is just 94,005 votes. Out of around 28 million total. With 10 primaries still to go that still makes for a race. (and lets just see how Obama continuing to object to have Florida counted goes down with Florida voters who are already not that keen on him).
From the Clinton camps point of view there’s still good reason to keep going.
April 16th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
KIA, A footnote to meerkat’s excellent analysis… Rasmussen, one of the most accurate and comprehensive US pollsters, does a detailed tracking of the parties in each state using a variety of sources and then calculates the Electoral College votes. It also runs a “gaming environment for a passionate community of political prophets and news junkies”, Rasmussen Markets, which is surprisingly accurate in predicting outcomes. It’s still early days yet, but the figures give the lie to some of your wishful thinking, you’d have to agree (if you are capable at looking at things objectively). As of today…
The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator shows the Electoral College race remains a Toss-Up. Democrats lead in states with 190 Electoral Votes while the GOP has the advantage in states with 189. When “leaners” are added, the Democrats lead 260 to 240 (see summary of recent state-by-state results). Data from Rasmussen Markets gives Democrats a 59.0 % chance of winning the White House in November.
April 16th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
“Democrats lead 260 to 240″
still short so they need win in some of Florida (27), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), Virginia (13), Missouri (11), Minnesota (10), Wisconsin (10), Colorado (9), Iowa (7), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), and New Hampshire (4).
Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan – all Clinton.
Clinton also won the three states with the most electors – California, New York and Florida. Adds a bit of spice to the Obama/Clinton contest.
April 16th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Neil:
“they need win in some of Florida (27), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), Virginia (13), Missouri (11), Minnesota (10), Wisconsin (10), Colorado (9), Iowa (7), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), and New Hampshire (4).
Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan – all Clinton.
Clinton also won the three states with the most electors – California, New York and Florida. Adds a bit of spice to the Obama/Clinton contest.”
The Michigan and Florida primaries don’t count: the state parties moved them up the calendar, with the result that the DNC has stripped those states of convention delegates. Hillary’s “victories” in those states are meaningless (Obama wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan, and no-one campaigned in Florida).
As for your list of swing-states, Minnesota has voted Democratic in every presidential election since the 1950s, with the sole exception of 1972 (it was the only state never to vote for Reagan). Wisconsin always tends to be close, but has been won by every Democrat since Dukakis. Obama does well in the West, and now has the endorsement of popular New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who is likely on the shortlist of Obama’s VP choices. The New Hampshire Republican Party (the last real remaining bastion of old-fashioned Yankee Republicanism) is in terminal meltdown.
California and New York would vote for a sausage roll if it had a ‘D’ next to its name.
I wouldn’t give Obama much chance in Florida (especially if McCain picks Governor Crist as his running mate), but I don’t think he needs it.
April 16th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
decadantmeerkat and jafapete
Each time a Democrat fails to win the White House, the Dems always give a variety on reasons and their in-house navel gazing is neatly sumed up in your post. Thankfully for Republicans, Democrats continue to fail to come to grips with the real reason why only their centerist candidates win. McGovern lost because he was a peacenik and was too far to the left. Dukakis squandered a 17 point lead over the rather insipid Bush Snr. He was done in by Willie Horton and his persistent backing of a left leaning liberal touchstone – an overly generous prison furlough programme that enabled Horton to be released and go on to murder. Gore was a genuine centerist and came the closest. For the record, a consortium of media paid to have the FL votes counted to the end (excluding of course the 17,000 military votes the FL Supreme Court ruled out of contention) and Bush still won FL and, until the Constitution is amended, the winner of the Electoral College not popular vote becomes President.
The partisan race for one party’s nomination is not the true test of a candidate’s negatives and how they’ll play in the General Election. The cumulative weight of Obama’s questionable personal connections (Wright, Ayers/Dohmer, Rezko and who else that haven’t come to light), his far left voting record in the Senate, the thinnest resume of any candidate for President since Eisenhower, his desire to cut and run from Iraq against the flow of US opinion coalesing around backing Petraeus’s strategy and his tin ear to middle American sensibilities by condemning rural PA from the lofty heights of uber liberal millionaires row in SF has never really been tested by Clinton. This is because she holds almost identical ideological positions and carries plenty of negatives and baggage herself.
The GOP easily framed Kerry as an efette, flip flopping MA patrician liberal. Obama is even more to the left of Kerry. Even super liberal CA Senators Boxter and Feinstein voted for the federal Infant Born Alive Act – one that compelled doctors to save the life of any baby that somehow survived a late term abortion. Until that Act was passed (99-1 in the Senate), abortionists would leave these born alive infants to die. Obama however chaired the relevant Illinois State Senate Committee and, after stating his verbal opposition to the bill as infringing on a woman’s rights, refused to even allow the IL State version of the Federal Act to come up for a vote. Now THAT is as far to the left on the abortion issue as any politician across Federal and State legislatures across the US because in all states that tried to pass a State version of the IBA, the laws were overwhelmingly passed. Obama’s hard left associations, positions and PA comment (which seemed so accurate and non controversial to liberal lefties in NZ) are a veritable treasure trove of fodder for the GOP come the fall. This is the main reason that Clinton fights on because she believes Obama is unelectable in the fall.
McCain won the GOP nomination because of his crossover appeal. Independents in NH and SC handed him both those states and that gave him the momentum that carried on into FL. The Republican base will vote for him and those crossover Independents and Reagan Democrats in swing states like OH and PA will not only guarantee McCain will beat Obama in those crucial states but will, for the first time since Reagan, bring the NE states into play. When recent polls put McCain ahead of Obama in NY and within single digits in MA, the Dems have a major problem. The purple states in the west that went for Bush that Obama could easily pickup (NM, NV, CO) do not counter balance PA and OH. McCain is so far ahead in FL that the likelihood of an Obama win is slim. So what other red states of any size does Obama pick up to counterbalance the loss of NH, NY and maybe NJ as well?
One final thing you are missing and that is how partisan the Democrat race has become. Recent polls have asked the voting intentions of Obama and Clinton supporters in the event that their candidate loses the nomination. The consensus of polls is that a whopping 31% of Clinton supporters would vote for McCain if Obama wins and 19% of Obama supporters would do the same if Clinton wins. Those are the highest figures ever recorded of possible cross party defection and even if they are severely inflated due to the heat and light of the current primary fight, if McCain only gets 5 – 7% of Clinton supporters, in a state like PA (where the current RCP average has Obama and McCain neck and neck with only some of the polls in that average factoring in the Bittergate comment), that margin of crossover voters is sufficient to give McCain the winning margin in several swing states.
The New Republic are a pretty left leaning journal as is one of their political writers John Judis and he is pretty bearish about Obama’s November chances for much the same reasons I cite http://www.tnr.com/environmentenergy/story.html?id=bf08a566-7c44-446a-aa34-7889b0f24b5a I dont believe Judis is influenced by Fox News all that much.
April 16th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
“The Michigan and Florida primaries don’t count: the state parties moved them up the calendar,”
I’m aware of that be it matters in terms of who out of Obama and Clinton can do better than McCain in the electoral college come Nov. Those Dem votes in Michigan and Florida may very well not get counted now, thanks to Obama, but they’ll be voting in Nov.
Not that I often agree with KIA but that Judis article is not an outlier in looking at how Nov could go.
April 16th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
KIA:
You make some good points, for which there are plenty of counter-arguments, as you must be aware. For example, Americans are registering as Democrats in unprecedented numbers, energised young people especially, the money is flowing to the Dems as never, ever before, and people’s number one priority is the economy, on which they trust the Dems more, and that’s not getting any better any time soon. And are you really that certain that Iraq won’t implode some time later in the year? And so on.
It’s too early in the race to start getting bogged down in predicting individual state-level outcomes. To predict at this point in time that Obama will lose NH, NY and maybe NJ in November is just plain daft.
Are you sure McCain will make it that far anyway? Do the Republicans have a plan B?
April 16th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
jafapete
I agree, its too early to predict races in the fall. On the issue of the energised Democrat base I’m afraid the level of Democrat voting in primaries is no predictor of their voting turnout in the fall. In the 1980 and 1988 elections (the most recent elections when both parties had contested primaries), the number of Dems voting in their primaries exceeded the GOP primary votes by margins of 2 or even 3 to 1 and yet despite this so-called primary enthusiasm gap, they lost to the GOP in the General in both elections. I know the Dems are invested in defeat in Iraq – Petraeus’ strategy is working and continues to improve but yes it could implode but on current form, it appears unlikely. The economy is definitely a weak spot but few candidates for President in the US ever win pledging to increase taxes as Obama and Clinton have both pledged to do. Obama outspent Clinton 3 – 1 in TX and OH and Romney’s huge money advantage over Huckabee and McCain in the end couldn’t deliver him the nomination. Romney has been out attending numerous joint fundraisers with McCain and has been calling in his extensive moneyed networks to back McCain. Obama has still to expend many millions yet to finally topple Clinton but I do believe he will still have a bigger war chest than McCain but that the advantage will not be so much as to be the difference.
Good point about McCain lasting. He is in good health for an old fella but who knows. Republican activists I know say they do have a plan B. A lot hinges on McCain’s Veep choice.
April 16th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
KIA We shall just have to wait and see how things pan out.
One thing — I think that this could be a mould-breaking election that renders some of those long-standing conventions otiose. A friend in Colorado, for example, who was an Obama precinct captain in the caucuses, says that there has NEVER been so much energy. Who knows, they may be able to organise effectively on the ground in places they have never been able to do that before. Then again, I think they had high hopes for Eugene McCarthy on that basis.
April 16th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
“Who knows, they may be able to organise effectively on the ground in places they have never been able to do that before.”
This is definitely true. Because of the close and drawn out Obama/Clinton contest every state is important and they have both had to set up organisation in places that that would not normally happen. Whether that ultimately affects Nov significantly is hard to tell.