U.S. Presidential Elections 2008

[August1991]

Senator McCain will prevail if he avoids blowing a gasket on national television.

You've noted before that McCain's weakness is his temper. It seems to me rather that it's his orneriness. This guy's not for turning.

As to Obama, from the Krystol column above:

Barack Obama is an awfully talented politician. But could the American people, by November, decide that for all his impressive qualities, Obama tends too much toward the preening self-regard of Bill Clinton, the patronizing elitism of Al Gore and the haughty liberalism of John Kerry?

It’s fitting that the alternative to Obama will be John McCain. He makes no grand claim to fix our souls. He doesn’t think he’s the one everyone has been waiting for. He’s more proud of his country than of himself. And his patriotism has consisted of deeds more challenging than “speaking out on issues.”

I read somewhere that Obama is filled with himself and I imagine with the way his campaign is going now, he's even more filled with himself. I understand that a politician has to have a large ego. But successful ones can draw the distinction between themselves as people and their public persona. Obama OTOH may start to believe that he really is the Chosen One. His wife certainly suggests that in her speeches.

For what it's worth, I predict a McCain victory. The popular vote margin will be slim, maybe 52% to 48% (if no independent or third party candidate such as Bloomberg) but the overall electoral margin will in some ways be similar to 1980.

I'm predicting a McCain win too although I wouldn't hazard a guess now about numbers. I thought Hillary would win the nomination making the Fall campaign rather predictable. With Obama, it will be more entertaining in a revivalist way.

In terms of campaigns, I'd look at 1972 or 1964. Obama's supporters will make up in enthusiasm what they lack in real support.

Incidentally, Nader is running and will draw off maybe 1% from Obama.

[Carinthia]

If Nader gets 500 votes overall, I will be very surprised! The guy has turned into a joke.

Edited February 26, 2008 by Carinthia

[August1991]

If Nader gets 500 votes overall, I will be very surprised! The guy has turned into a joke.

You're right. My 1% was far too high.

Nader got 2.7% when he ran for the Greens in 2000 but he got only 0.38% as an independent in 2004. At this point (and unlike in 2000), he's drawing as many votes from Democrats as Republicans or non-voters and so his candidacy has no impact on the final result.

[jbg]

You're right. My 1% was far too high.

Nader got 2.7% when he ran for the Greens in 2000 but he got only 0.38% as an independent in 2004. At this point (and unlike in 2000), he's drawing as many votes from Democrats as Republicans or non-voters and so his candidacy has no impact on the final result.

That depends on where he draws that vote. If it's a historically close state like Florida or Ohio all bets are off on Nader's impact.

Bloomberg, as a third-party candidate could be far more important. Though he won't win he'll draw votes in spades from the Democrats.

[August1991]

Clinton has done well in Ohio but not good enough to win the nomination, IMV. Her defeat in Wisconsin is just too telling. She had to win big in Ohio and she hasn't done that.

At the same time, Ohio indicates the problems that Obama will face in November.

Vote by Race Clinton Obama

White 65% 33%

African-American 14% 86%

CNN Exit Polls

Obama got "only" 1/3 of the white vote in Ohio. He also appeals to college educated, higher income and less religious Democrats. (I suspect that these numbers get skewed by his black vote. Among white voters, Obama does well among elite liberals.)

Obama will have trouble getting the blue-collar, Reagan Democrats and their wives. It is easy imagining them going to McCain who is more of a legionnaire than a country club Republican.

----

In other news:

Mike Huckabee dropped out of the Republican race after the results came in.

CNN

[bush_cheney2004]

Clinton has done well in Ohio but not good enough to win the nomination, IMV. Her defeat in Wisconsin is just too telling. She had to win big in Ohio and she hasn't done that.

You're right...the math is her enemy.

Wisconsin is mourning a much larger loss....#4 has retired.

[August1991]

You're right...the math is her enemy.

The math in terms of delegates.

In fact though, with 70% of the precincts reporting, it appears she got 56% to Obama's 42% in Ohio. That's a clear win - although Obama seems to think that his urban precincts are slow to report. Hillary has done well in rural areas.

Texas OTOH is a very tight race - 52/48 at the moment.

-----

This augurs badly for the Dems in November. Clinton can't win the nomination and Obama may not carry Ohio. A Democrat who loses Ohio can't win the White House.

OTOH, Barone had a good piece the other day explaining that alot of the standard rules of thumb may not apply in this election. We're in uncharted territory.

It's time to throw out that old map with the red states and blue states. The map that implies that all but a handful of states will definitely vote Republican or Democratic and that the real contest will be decided in Florida or Ohio or whatever.

For a time, the map served its purpose. Only three states changed parties between the 2000 and the 2004 presidential elections, and the average change in percentage margin in those states was only 1.5 percent. But such hugely static political patterns are the exception rather than the rule in our history.

...

The demographic factor most highly correlated with voting behavior in 2000 and 2004 was religion, or depth of religious belief. Within each relevant religious group, the more observant tended to vote Republican and the less observant Democratic. That may no longer be the case. Voters may well split along other lines, as voters in industrial states once split along lines of income or union membership, and voters in states with heavy early 20th century immigration split along sectarian lines (Catholic Democrats versus Protestant Republicans).

If I were running the McCain or Obama campaign, I would be doing in-depth polling and focus groups in 30 to 40 states and nationally, as well, trying to determine which voting groups are moving or moveable toward my candidate and which are moving or moveable the other way. I would certainly not be writing off states that were lost by my party's 2000 and 2004 nominees by 5 percent or more, and I would not assume that states they carried by that much were in the bag. It's time to throw out the old map and search for clues to what the new map will look like.

Link

I think Barone is on to something there.

Edited March 5, 2008 by August1991

[Shakeyhands]

but Obama is being treated with kid gloves by the media,

by everyone but the CPC.... unbelievable.

http://www.thestar.com/article/309381

Not investigating 'NAFTAgate' leak: Conservatives

[August1991]

The best description of the Democratic race now:

The Democratic primary season seems to have dwindled down into a psycho remake of Driving Miss Daisy. The fading matriarch Mizz Hill’ry (Jessica Tandy) doesn’t want to give up the keys to the Democratic-party vehicle but the dignified black chauffeur Hokey (Morgan Freeman) insists it’ll be a much smoother ride with him in the driver’s seat, full of gear change you can believe in, etc. Yet, just as he thinks the old biddy’s resigned to a nomination as Best Supporting Actress, the backseat driver plunges her hat pin into his spine, wrests the wheel away and lurches across the median.

Mark Steyn

This was going to turn into a car wreck in November but who could have predicted that this would be a careening pile-up.

Edited March 8, 2008 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

Dick Morris gets paid to state the obvious:

The results are already clear. Obama will go to the Democratic Convention with a lead of between 100 and 200 elected delegates. The remaining question is: What will the superdelegates do then?

But is that really a question? Will the leaders of the Democratic Party be complicit in its destruction? Will they really kindle a civil war by denying the nomination to the man who won the most elected delegates?

No way.

They well understand that to do so would be to throw away the party’s chances of victory and to stigmatize it among African-Americans and young people for the rest of their lives. The Democratic Party took 20 years to recover from the traumas of 1968 and it is not about to trigger a similar bloodletting this year.

[Carinthia]

They well understand that to do so would be to throw away the party’s chances of victory and to stigmatize it among African-Americans and young people for the rest of their lives. The Democratic Party took 20 years to recover from the traumas of 1968 and it is not about to trigger a similar bloodletting this year.[/i]

After seeing George Bush get re-elected in 2004, I wouldn't bet any money on the Dems voting on the popular vote theory. Strange things do seem to happen in the U.S. that are nothing short of mind boggling to some of us.

I will be awaiting your example of how Canada does the same thing BC.

[bush_cheney2004]

After seeing George Bush get re-elected in 2004, I wouldn't bet any money on the Dems voting on the popular vote theory. Strange things do seem to happen in the U.S. that are nothing short of mind boggling to some of us.

The US appears to do "strange things" to you because you do not understand that it is fundamentally a much more conservative country compared to Canada. Seeing America's politics through your optics (or vice versa) can only invoke wonder. Imagine how Canadians felt in 1776.

Oh, and thank you for the 2004 reminder...it was extremely rewarding to demonstrate the undeniable choice for President Bush in the face of all that had/would transpire. The biggest in-your-face political slam dunk of my lifetime. Yes, I am still gloating, long after my "W" sticker has faded away.

I will be awaiting your example of how Canada does the same thing BC.

Just ask Paul Martin and the turfed Grits...not me.

Edited March 11, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[August1991]

Dick Morris gets paid to state the obvious:

The results are already clear. Obama will go to the Democratic Convention with a lead of between 100 and 200 elected delegates. The remaining question is: What will the superdelegates do then?

But is that really a question? Will the leaders of the Democratic Party be complicit in its destruction? Will they really kindle a civil war by denying the nomination to the man who won the most elected delegates?

No way.

They well understand that to do so would be to throw away the party’s chances of victory and to stigmatize it among African-Americans and young people for the rest of their lives. The Democratic Party took 20 years to recover from the traumas of 1968 and it is not about to trigger a similar bloodletting this year.

So far, I agree. The superdelegates can't really override the pledged delegates (although who will really know for sure).

Anyway, there is still the question of Michigan and Florida up in the air. And Pennsylvania is a Hillary State. I mean, these two are going to be fighting it out in Puerto Rico and Guam.

Talk about a train wreck.

[bush_cheney2004]

Anyway, there is still the question of Michigan and Florida up in the air. And Pennsylvania is a Hillary State. I mean, these two are going to be fighting it out in Puerto Rico and Guam.

Talk about a train wreck.

Hillary and ex-Prez hubby made another mistake today....illogically hinting at a VP slot for Obama on Hillary's ticket after saying he wasn't qualified to be Commander-in-Chief. This has the look of desperation.

Train Wreck indeed...Gomez Adams style.

[Moonlight Graham]

The US appears to do "strange things" to you because you do not understand that it is fundamentally a much more conservative country compared to Canada. Seeing America's politics through your optics (or vice versa) can only invoke wonder. Imagine how Canadians felt in 1776.

I think just about every Canadian whose ever picked up a newspaper for reasons other than the 'sports' & 'funny-pages' section understands that the US is more conservative than Canada. But there's a difference between voting for conservatism & voting for fraud & incompetence.

Oh, and thank you for the 2004 reminder...it was extremely rewarding to demonstrate the undeniable choice for President Bush in the face of all that had/would transpire. The biggest in-your-face political slam dunk of my lifetime. Yes, I am still gloating, long after my "W" sticker has faded away.

Who is more the fool? The fool, or the fool who follows him?

[Moonlight Graham]

If Nader gets 500 votes overall, I will be very surprised! The guy has turned into a joke.

The joke is that the system won't allow him, or anyone other than a donkey or elephant, to be taken seriously.

Democracy means you need massive exclusive media coverage and a $50 million war-chest, right?

[bush_cheney2004]

I think just about every Canadian whose ever picked up a newspaper for reasons other than the 'sports' & 'funny-pages' section understands that the US is more conservative than Canada. But there's a difference between voting for conservatism & voting for fraud & incompetence.

Of course...I give you Prime Minister Harper instead of the fraudulent and incompetent Liberals.

Who is more the fool? The fool, or the fool who follows him?

The fool afraid to be either. America will elect whomever the hell it pleases, and the collective moans from those who disagree is priceless.

Edited March 11, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[BubberMiley]

America will elect whomever the hell it pleases, and the collective moans from those who disagree is priceless.

Yes. I enjoyed the moans in 96, the moans yesterday as Hastert's seat went Dem, and the moans in November will be truly priceless.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes. I enjoyed the moans in 96, the moans yesterday as Hastert's seat went Dem, and the moans in November will be truly priceless.

That remains to be seen....either way, the moans stem from our democratic process, not yours.

[UShaditComing]

That remains to be seen....either way, the moans stem from our democratic process, not yours.

So Canadians aren't allowed to talk about your election now? And we're not allowed to say that the US had it coming. And what else would 'YOU' like us not to talk about on this Canadian forum?

[Carinthia]

That remains to be seen....either way, the moans stem from our democratic process, not yours.

Who cares? The last time I looked there was a Maple Leaf at the top of this forum.

[Moonlight Graham]

That remains to be seen....either way, the moans stem from our democratic process, not yours.

Canadians are entitled to their opinion. Especially since your elections affect our country a great deal, and have a massive affect on the world.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Especially since your elections affect our country a great deal, and have a massive affect on the world.

No, US elections have very little "affect" on Canada. Are you not a sovereign state? Perhaps you mean that the foreign and domestic policies of the Unites States could have an impact. If such an impact is massive, then you only have yourselves to blaim.

[BubberMiley]

No, US elections have very little "affect" on Canada. Are you not a sovereign state? Perhaps you mean that the foreign and domestic policies of the Unites States could have an impact. If such an impact is massive, then you only have yourselves to blaim.

I wouldn't say Canada is to "blaim" for the fact that foreign policy of the "Unites States" affects everybody in the world.

[Carinthia]

No, US elections have very little "affect" on Canada. Are you not a sovereign state? Perhaps you mean that the foreign and domestic policies of the Unites States could have an impact. If such an impact is massive, then you only have yourselves to blaim.

When Canada doesn't play ball with the U.S. they slap unreasonable tarifs on our exports, lumber, beef, etc. Free Trade? Ya sure!! I reside in a community that relies solely on logging and I witnessed first hand, the negative impact this had on the citizens in our communities here. That is just a teensy weensy example as to why I watch closely.

Even though we've suffered, I've never yet spoken to a Canadian, in my neck of the woods, who has any regrets about our Government taking a stand to stay out of Iraq. I guess up here, the lives of young men and women, as well as the individual freedom that other nations wish to maintain for themselves, is more important to us, than it is to some Americans.