[Archived] American Presidential Elections

[philipl]

Bush' acceleration of the end of the unipolar world by at least ten years is a legacy facing whoever the new President will be.

Although it will not be comfortable for the rest of us, there is some evidence that the US is going to feel the current economic woes far worse than everybody else. That would echo the experience of Britain as we slipped from global pre-eminence in the late nineteenth and most of the twentieth centuries.

My gut feel is that Clinton's bid for the Presidency is now effectively dead unless she can trip Obama up. I never did "buy" the experience argument used in her campaign as she was a busted flush in the Bill administration from the moment her health/welfare role failed within the first 18 months of Bill's presidency. The Obama campaign probably has plenty of guns it could use to explode the experience myth if it wanted to and no doubt is manoeuvring to the point at which it can say "we could and would do this to you so just withdraw gracefully". Exploding nuclear weapons like that also backfires on the bomber as well as the bombed and Obama needs a united and strong party to face McCain.

As it is, the strength of the Clinton campaign will have route-proved and honed the Obama campaign for the fight against McCain who will have the problem of having the backing of a machine (the shock joks and the evangelists and the neocons) who deep down don't believe in him or trust him.

I could say H's experience was presumably intermittently sexual during B's presidency but I won't.

[Flopsy]

do you think she'd get/take the VP ticket?

[Rovermatt]

Not a chance. Obama supporters would appear to favour one from Evan Bayh (Senator, Indiana), Kathleen Sebelius (Governor, Kansas), Jim Webb (Senator, Virginia), John Edwards (former Senator, North Carolina), Joe Biden (Senator, Delaware), Bill Richardson (Governor, New Mexico) and, for those who are really out there, Dennis Kucinich (Congressman, Ohio).

[USRoverME]

I don't think you'll see Hilary leave the race until Michigan and Florida are "decided". She's holding out hope that if those states re-run, she can swing the popular vote back into her favor and really give the party superdelegates something to think about. That's why she's sayign she'll go to the convention. If there's a re-vote, she thinks she can win and close the gap. If they don't revote, it likely won't be before the convention that the Democratic Party Rules and Credentials people truly decide how to deal with seating or not seating those delegations. Seeing as the votes are looking improbable...

[Rovermatt]

I thought Florida and Michigan were going to remain barred.

[American]

I thought Florida and Michigan were going to remain barred.

There has been talk about running new elections, but so far, no one wants to pay to run them.

[Rovermatt]

I could have sworn I read on at least two news sites in the last couple of days that Obama's lawyers have been successful and that it was pretty much settled that Florida and Michigan would not have their delegates reinstated.

[USRoverME]

if that's the slant you get overseas, then I'm sorrym I'll try and post here more often!

The legal wranglings are far from over, and those reports saying Obama's lawyers are the one blokcing the elecation are stretching the truth as well, from what I'm seeing and reading. Basically a vote has to be approved by the state legislation in any case, that that's not likely due to the costs involved. Politicans admit that they messed up and directly cost their states $30 million, never happen! Besides they have to find a way that prevents someone from having voted on the rep side before, and now vote in the Dem primary (thats int eh DNC rules). Florida has basically decided not to re-vote. Currently you don't have to be registered to a specific party in Michigan to vote at the Primary, so, how do you "prove" that you didn';t vote Republican. It could be a wild crap shoot (could McCain supproters or Reps in General "stuff the box" in favor of one or the other?), unless the state changes some rules around, which many have problems doing (not just Obama's supporters).

The Clinton spin - "let them vote, make it happen, any vote they decide to have I'll support! Obama why are you standing in the way of letting the voters be heard? You say you want people to be heard, why are you silencing Florida and Michigan"

The Obama spin - "lets find a fair way for everyone to vote that the state can afford, and that doesn't conflict with the previous voting held in Michigan on the Republican side. And also Mrs. Clinton, why did you have no problems with Forida and Michigan not counting while you were campaigning in NH and Iowa, but now that you might lose, they've become a major concern of yours? How politically convenient."

[philipl]

Now that Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean have said they want the race closed by 1 July, it is getting to being all but impossible for Clinton to stay in.

Three things are likely to force her out-

Money; apparently her campaign has millions outstanding in unpaid bills and is likely to struggle if Obama's media spend goes nuclear in the last week in Philadelphia.

Negative campaigning; the Democrat Party machine will shut her down one way or another if she continues the current capaign attacks.

Misspeaking; presenting sharing the Presidential bed once in a while as experience is going to be increasingly seen as BS as her campaign loses momentum and credibility. She has actually damaged the fond regard a lot of people, especially non-Americans, still had for Bill's presidency despite its outright cynicism in many areas.

Without the $40m coming from anywhere in particular, the appetite for re-running the Florida and Michigan caucuses in which the Republicans will vote Clinton to get the candidate they think their man will beat is very low indeed.

[Rovermatt]

It was US news reports that I was reading.

[USRoverME]

Then I'd suggest reading different news sources! Out of curiousity, which ones do you read?

One website I'm growing to love is factcheck.org quite fun actually, since they take ads, speeches adn the like and actually do the background work to see if that numbers, figures, facts etc are actualy true... Helps to not only get tot eh truth about positions of the candidates, but it also helps to see whose spin machine is into mild manipulation, and who is into outright mangling of the truth.

[Rovermatt]

Boston Globe, CNN, LA Times.

[American]

Then I'd suggest reading different news sources! Out of curiousity, which ones do you read?

One website I'm growing to love is factcheck.org quite fun actually, since they take ads, speeches adn the like and actually do the background work to see if that numbers, figures, facts etc are actualy true... Helps to not only get tot eh truth about positions of the candidates, but it also helps to see whose spin machine is into mild manipulation, and who is into outright mangling of the truth.

Let me guess, Hillary is the latter?

Matt, try reading either Fox News or Washington Times (if it still exists). Not your political bent, but it doesn't hurt to get an opposing viewpoint to the liberal sites you currently read.

And they might not make up FBI documents about Tupac, either!

[Rovermatt]

Aside from the Times, I wasn't really aware of the political bias of either CNN or the Globe.

[philipl]

If you get your news from the loonies at Fox, everything else looks like a left wing conspiracy!

I watch Fox occasionally by way of comedy/horror show.

[Rovermatt]

You can get it here through Sky. It's very unsettling.

[American]

No more unsettling than reading the NY Times, or watching CNN....

[philipl]

And therein lies America's failure. CNN and NY Times are mainstream with the rest of the world. Fox is a ghetto of loonies.

In praise of George Bush senior.

The Times in London quite rightly looks at George W's NATO behaviour from a Russian perspective. Another example of George W completely cocking it up.

[USRoverME]

Given the vociferous debates that used to occur on this site, philipl, forgive me if I disagree that there is a "mainstream" anywhere in the free world in terms of "leftness" or "rightness" of political coverage.

[American]

Murdoch wouldn't be making a ton of money in every country he has a news presence if Philip was correct about "mainstream" in the world.

[joey_big_nose]

Murdoch wouldn't be making a ton of money in every country he has a news presence if Philip was correct about "mainstream" in the world.

To be fair he tailors it. The Sun and Sky for example are far less right wing than Fox because the UK is a lot less skewed to the right, at least on social service and "lifestyle" (abortion, sexuality, religion) issues.

He is right wing himself, and I personally dislike him, but he a great part of it is tailoring the programming to the audience. Most of America was to the right of most of the major media outlets pre Fox so there was a great big black hole which he cleverly hoovered up.

[philipl]

In the UK, the Murdoch papers backed Blair 100% against the Conservatives and still have not yet abandonned supporting the Labour Government.

Elizabeth Murdoch is organising a glittering fund raising dinner for Obama.

[USRoverME]

Sounds liek Howard "YEEAAAAHHHHHHRG" Dean and the DNC will try and find a way to get the Florida and Michigan delegates a seat at the aprty, but they are going to base the committed delegates on some "formula" including the actual primary voting in state and national results. Intersting, since Obama wasn't on one ticket, and neither really spent any time in the other. In any formula like this, the delelgates will basically even out, Hilary had a lead in votes in both palces, Obama has the popular vote (unless they get really silly with the Michigan results since Obama wasn't on the ticket there).

What I'm not clear on is if the superdelegates were taken away from those 2 states, or just the pledged delegates....

[Eddie]

Actually, my big problem with the American media is that it is all skewed. Anyone who's read even a little of what I have said will know that I am by no means a right-minded person (go to town on that Phil), but that still doesn't mean that I want my "liberal" media constantly either making fun of the right or simply rejecting anything that they say. I sometimes am disgusted by the way the liberals in America simply try and take this moral high ground where they make these wonderful "jokes" about the right. In my mind it simply makes the entire left look childish. It also worries me greatly when you hear people praising any candidate to high heavens and hearing them say things like "are we deserving" (something I've heard said about Obama a couple of times). American's can get themselves so worked up about these things, so involved in "hope", "change" and a "new beginning" that they forget about anything else.

[USRoverME]

eddie,

re: your first part... that's why, whn I'm reading the news, I have to read at eaest 3-4 sites... one way left, one way right, and at least one that I find to be neutral leaning (typically the AP does a decent job in my eyes of simply reporting facts and leaving the spin to others).

As to your comments about "hope", I have to sincerely disagree. Elections are all about hope and change, in my view. No government is ever going to be perfect, and current American one is certainly no exception, so elelctions are the time to fix those thigns that are broken by replacing the people who broke them, or by installign people you hope can fix things.... after all, no politico comes with a guarantee.