U.S. Presidential Elections 2008

[BubberMiley]

It's more a question of ego and hurt feelings than anything substantive.

Only if you don't consider key policy differences to be substantive. The reality is Hillary is the more conservative candidate, and Obama is the more attractive.

[jdobbin]

I think this overrated. It's more a question of ego and hurt feelings than anything substantive.

November is a long way away and given the prospect of a President Hillary or a President Obama, many Republican minds will be concentrated. It's easy for them to carp now.

I don't know that you are correct on that. These conservatives are not likely to go quietly and they have the wherewithal to cause a lot of problems.

The winner take all system the Republicans have ensures a clear winner but it doesn't address a large part of the Republican party that doesn't favour the candidate.

Can the conservatives rally around McCain? Possible. However, they don't seem inclined to do so.

Early results imply that Romney or Huckabee may get Georgia and so will Obama. I wouldn't be surprised.

BTW, I wonder is Obama's (exit) poll numbers will exaggerate his support. PQ polling numbers are usually over-estimated because people are shy to admit that they are federalist. The same phenomenon may apply to Obama where in some circles, it's cool to support Obama but in the polling both, people vote differently.

Clinton has won Tennessee and Oklahoma. McCain has won New Jersey, Connecticut and Illinois.

Obama has won Illinois and and Georgia.

[August1991]

Only if you don't consider key policy differences to be substantive. The reality is Hillary is the more conservative candidate, and Obama is the more attractive.

That's nonsense. The ACU rates McCain at about 83 and Clinton at 9. You tell me who is conservative.

As to Obama being the most attractive, I suppose if you're a 17 year old girl you might say that - but Barack ("get the troops out now") Obama isn't going to win any electoral college votes in any red state. Obama's socialist health plan doesn't even make sense.

This is not how you get mainstream votes. (Aside from the empty Hallmark platitudes, heck, I think I saw a guy raising a fist Che/Black Panther style... )

If Obama were serious about becoming president (and maybe in 2012 or 2016 he will be), he will have to run a very different campaign. You don't get elected by going after the fringe. Just ask George McGovern or Barry Goldwater.

Edited February 6, 2008 by August1991

[jdobbin]

That's nonsense. The ACU rates McCain at about 83 and Clinton at 9. You tell me who is conservative.

Looking at the exit polls, it looks like the conservatives in the Republican party have split their votes between Romney and Huckabee. McCain wins by default and there are a lot of unhappy people on the right. They don't have to vote for Clinton or Obama as a result. They could just sit out the election or choose to support a third party in protest.

[August1991]

Obama has won Illinois and and Georgia.

Very predictable. Obama might get Utah too.

BTW, I don't know how they can call Illinois when so few precincts have reported.

Looking at the exit polls, it looks like the conservatives in the Republican party have split their votes between Romney and Huckabee. McCain wins by default and there are a lot of unhappy people on the right. They don't have to vote for Clinton or Obama as a result. They could just sit out the election or choose to support a third party in protest.

That is what is called wishful thinking.

But I have wondered if McCain might invite Huckabee on to the ticket.

Edited February 6, 2008 by August1991

[jdobbin]

Very predictable. Obama might get Utah too.

BTW, I don't know how they can call Illinois when so few precincts have reported.

I think CNN said they did exit polling. Other than that, I don't know how they can make the claim. The media in the U.S. has often gotten election results wrong.

[BubberMiley]

That is what is called wishful thinking.

The most wishful thinking I've heard is Republicans hoping the base might show up for a pro-choice candidate. But we all know that's never going to happen.

Just like McCain putting Huckabee on the ticket. He's much more likely to go with Romney if he feels he needs to unify the party because Romney can be swayed to do whatever is politically expedient (i.e., whatever liberal McCain says).

[bush_cheney2004]

I think CNN said they did exit polling. Other than that, I don't know how they can make the claim. The media in the U.S. has often gotten election results wrong.

Really? How often? Maybe you mean Dewey in "48"? Election results are not wrong...it is projections that can be in error.

They can make the claim based on statistics and precinct profiles from the past.

[August1991]

Really? How often? Maybe you mean Dewey in "48"? Election results are not wrong...it is projections that can be in error.

They can make the claim based on statistics and precinct profiles from the past.

So far, I haven't seen any surprises. The states that are supposed to be close are close.

No one is really doing any better than predicted which means that it's kind of a victory for Obama. Clinton, all things considered, was the front-runner.

I think breakdowns will show that Obama is doing very well with black voters. He's getting over 90% and he's winning states where blacks form a large part of the Democratic party.

[August1991]

The most wishful thinking I've heard is Republicans hoping the base might show up for a pro-choice candidate. But we all know that's never going to happen.

Just like McCain putting Huckabee on the ticket. He's much more likely to go with Romney if he feels he needs to unify the party because Romney can be swayed to do whatever is politically expedient (i.e., whatever liberal McCain says).

Reagan chose Schweiker in 1976. And come to think of it, Roe vs. Wade survived Reagan and Bush Snr.

[BubberMiley]

And come to think of it, Roe vs. Wade survived Reagan and Bush Snr.

It also survived Bush Jr so far. But that doesn't make Reagan or Bush 41 or 43 pro-choice like McCain is pro-choice.

ANd with Giuliani on the ticket, it will be the most abortion-friendly GOP ever. That should motivate the base.

[bush_cheney2004]

....I think breakdowns will show that Obama is doing very well with black voters. He's getting over 90% and he's winning states where blacks form a large part of the Democratic party.

Could be, but Senator Obama is getting a lot more than "blacks". (Is Hillary getting "whites"?)

Obama is getting a more complicated mix of demographics than just "race".

[August1991]

It also survived Bush Jr so far. But that doesn't make Reagan or Bush 41 or 43 pro-choice like McCain is pro-choice.

ANd with Giuliani on the ticket, it will be the most abortion-friendly GOP ever. That should motivate the base.

Giuliani isn't going to be on the ticket.

I looked up McCain's record on abortion. It seems as confusing as most politicians in Western society. From what I can gather, McCain favours repealing Roe vs. Wade but he voted to subsidize stem cell research.

Who knows but I don't see this becoming an issue. McCain is too experienced a politician. When the pro-life types consider what will happen if they stay at home, they'll fall into line.

Bubbler, you should keep in mind that Clinton got elected in 1992 and 1996 in part because Ross Perot took votes away from the Republicans. For a Democrat to win the presidency, everything has to be right. Gore came very, very close in 2000 - and frankly, neither Hillary nor Obama are as mainstream as Gore.

[August1991]

Could be, but Senator Obama is getting a lot more than "blacks". (Is Hillary getting "whites"?)

Obama is getting a more complicated mix of demographics than just "race".

Of course, Obama is doing well in general.

But it's a bit like Trudeau (Liberals) who always did well in ridings where there was a significant French-speaking or Catholic population.

Take a look at Alabama. Obama is doing much better than the polls predicted and I think this is in part due to the number of blacks in the Democratic Party there. On the other side, take a look at NJ where Clinton is doing better than expected.

NY is going as expected to McCain and Hillary. California will be interesting to see on the Democratic side.

This has been a disaster for Romney. He got Massachusetts and that's all. Even Huckabee beat him in Georgia.

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course, Obama is doing well in general.

But it's a bit like Trudeau (Liberals) who always did well in ridings where there was a significant French-speaking or Catholic population.

Take a look at Alabama. Obama is doing much better than the polls predicted and I think this is in part due to the number of blacks in the Democratic Party there. On the other side, take a look at NJ where Clinton is doing better than expected.

Take a look at Utah....what does the "blacks" yardstick say about Utah...Obama has won it as well.

Just in case it is not clear, and others have already said it, a Democratic candidate cannot win party nomination and certainly not a general election based on only the so called "black" vote, but they certainly can lose because of it.

[BubberMiley]

Gore came very, very close in 2000 - and frankly, neither Hillary nor Obama are as mainstream as Gore.

Kerry didn't do too badly in 2004 either. But Obama is much, much better at what he does than Kerry. So is Clinton.

[August1991]

Take a look at Utah....what does the "blacks" yardstick say about Utah...Obama has won it as well.

Just in case it is not clear, and others have already said it, a Democratic candidate cannot win party nomination and certainly not a general election based on only the so called "black" vote, but they certainly can lose because of it.

I/m not disputing that Obama is getting votes from non-blacks.

It's just that Obama is doing well in states in which blacks form a large share of the Democratic membership, or states in which caucuses mean a grassroots organization can do well. This explains his wins in SC, Georgia, Iowa an ND. (Yes, North Dakota.)

OTOH, he has lost very badly in NJ, NY, Mass. These are states that a Dem needs in November. So, Obama can win Utah (or ND) now but that's irrelevant - as a Democratic nominee, he's not going to win Utah or ND in November.

To become president, Obama has to demonstrate significant crossover appeal. He hasn't done that at all. (In 1960, Kennedy ran in a West Virginia primary to show that he could get Protestant votes. Obama hasn't done that in 2008.)

----

I'll admit that Obama seems to be winning in Connecticut (and the polls predicted a toss up there). Then again, Connecticut is where the Democrats kicked out Lieberman in a primary and then he won in the election as an independent. So Connecticut Democrats are a little kooky. I'll bet Obama is getting the votes because of Iraq.

Edited February 6, 2008 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

It's just that Obama is doing well in states in which blacks form a large share of the Democratic membership, or states in which caucuses mean a grassroots organization can do well. This explains his wins in SC, Georgia, Iowa an ND. (Yes, North Dakota.)

OTOH, he has lost very badly in NJ, NY, Mass. These are states that a Dem needs in November. So, Obama can win Utah (or ND) now but that's irrelevant - as a Democratic nominee, he's not going to win Utah or ND in November.

To become president, Obama has to demonstrate significant crossover appeal. He hasn't done that at all. (In 1960, Kennedy ran in a West Virginia primary to show that he could get Protestant votes. Obama hasn't done that in 2008.)

It's not November...it doesn't matter except for party nomination. The real game starts this fall, and any Democrat with a pulse would carry those states. Obama has demonstrated cross-over appeal.

Edited February 6, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[jbg]

I wonder how the conservative wing of the Republicans will react to a lock by McCain.

Grumble then vote for him. Hilary and Barack are both polarizing figures. Now if Bill were on the ticket....it would be different.

[August1991]

It's not November...it doesn't matter except for party nomination. The real game starts this fall, and any Democrat with a pulse would carry those states. Obama has demonstrated cross-over appeal.

While it's not November yet, that should be on the back of everybody's mind.

Sure, any Democrat should carry NJ or NY in November but it's not a certainty - and what about Florida or Ohio?

As to Obama's ability to seek mainstream support, this is a judgment call. In these primaries, I don't think that he's shown that he can. I also think that Obama is too left wing (too American liberal). OTOH, Hillary's negatives are simply too high. IOW, I think both Hillary and Obama are unelectable in November.

-----

On a separate note, I wonder what McCain will say tonight. Will he speak to the country or will he speak to the conservative base of the Republican party? There's good reason that he should use this moment to shore up the base. He can use the convention to speak to the country.

I'd expect McCain to be very partisan tonight.

[jbg]

November is a long way away and given the prospect of a President Hillary or a President Obama, many Republican minds will be concentrated. It's easy for them to carp now.

As you can see from an immediately preceding ost, I agree with you.

But why didn't the prospect of a renewed Trudeau government Chretien/Martin government "concentrate" the right more in 1993, 1997, 2000 and 2004?

[jbg]

IOW, I think both Hillary and Obama are unelectable in November.

What does "IOW" mean? I do agree that the Democrats have two unelectable leading candidates. Shades of 1972 or, less famously, 1988.

[August1991]

But why didn't the prospect of a renewed Trudeau government Chretien/Martin government "concentrate" the right more in 1993, 1997, 2000 and 2004?

From 1993-2000, the opposition to the Liberals was divided into three strands: BQ, PC and Reform/CA.

What does "IOW" mean? I do agree that the Democrats have two unelectable leading candidates. Shades of 1972 or, less famously, 1988.

IOW = in other words.

In the US, the Dems are choosing the equivalent of Jack Layton this year. In 1972 the Dems and in 1964 the GOP also picked unelectable candidates. In 1988, I thought Dukakis had a chance but he ran a really bad campaign. The Bushes are competitve SOBs and Dukakis wasn't prepared.

McCain spoke like Reagan and like a president tonight. I don't think McCain satisfied the noisy right but he said the right things to conservative voters.

[Rue]

I/m not disputing that Obama is getting votes from non-blacks.

It's just that Obama is doing well in states in which blacks form a large share of the Democratic membership, or states in which caucuses mean a grassroots organization can do well. This explains his wins in SC, Georgia, Iowa an ND. (Yes, North Dakota.)

OTOH, he has lost very badly in NJ, NY, Mass. These are states that a Dem needs in November. So, Obama can win Utah (or ND) now but that's irrelevant - as a Democratic nominee, he's not going to win Utah or ND in November.

To become president, Obama has to demonstrate significant crossover appeal. He hasn't done that at all. (In 1960, Kennedy ran in a West Virginia primary to show that he could get Protestant votes. Obama hasn't done that in 2008.)

----

I'll admit that Obama seems to be winning in Connecticut (and the polls predicted a toss up there). Then again, Connecticut is where the Democrats kicked out Lieberman in a primary and then he won in the election as an independent. So Connecticut Democrats are a little kooky. I'll bet Obama is getting the votes because of Iraq.

Your analysis from what I can see seems to be the consensus opinion on all the American tv channels I have been watching. May I now provide a hopelessly straight man's take on the candidates based on their non verbal language in an effort to lighten this up a tad.

Its interesting but watch the t.v. and you will see Hilary Clinton's non verbal language tries to mimmick a male's which I believe is intentional on her part and renders her coming across like KD Lang in a pants suit.

Obama's appeal on the other hand is comes from his little boy head on the coat hanger body.

McCain has got the kindly father-in-law down pat.

Obama's smile is genuine but toothy smiles have long been considered untrustworthy by straight men who prefer sneers and closed mouth smiles like we have serious gas and indigestion problems and were very much reasons for Jimmy Carter's inability to persuade people and John Edward's defeat and why Clint Eastwood, Harrison Ford or Sean Connery work for us. They don't show their teeth and the smile is a smerk to one side closed like we are in pain. Think Gary Cooper.

We don't want big teeth or big or sprayed hair. Most straight men are either bald or we have no clue no about how to comb our hair and to us hair is something you wish was not on your back, butt or in your nose or ears but on your head. So that rules out Mit Romney who looks like a tv game show host, car salesman or the guy about to stick his hand up our butt for a prostate exam and who tells us not to worry. Plus he cuts his eye-browse a big no-no for straight men.

Hilary's body language is explosive. She can not cover the fact that she is an angry woman and impatient. Her eyes, posture and strained mouth make it clear this is not someone interested in other peoples' opinions. Her smile is completely forced as are her emotional displays.

Oh all straight men know her very well. Yep she is what we see after the kerplunk at night because we forgot to put the toilet seat down or left the stove on or forgot to take out the garbage or got caught staring out our neighbour's daughter or when we failed to bring home what ever we were asked but forgot or the angry boss who wants us fired and reminds us each day with a nother memorandum.

McCain we would have a beer with or be that father-in-law we could go to football games with. Obama would be the guy we would hire to represent us but probably not the guy we hang out with at a ball game since we would expect him to instead be working on our problems and so have no spare time.

Hilary we would expect suing us for leering when all we were staring at was the hair on her chin because we just couldn't help it. Its what men do. If you have a growth or hair in the wrong places, we stare. Its nothing personal. Its like checking out people's bumbs. It just happens. We mean no harm even if we drool.

The bottom line is straight men would probably vote for a guy who looks like Harrison Ford. Scar on his face, grimace and squints, and a man who always looks like he has heart-burn and is reprressing a burp-qualities we identify with sincerity.

Think Clint Eastwood at his peak. He always grimaced, squinted, and looked like he had heart-burn. Real men have acid reflux and walk like Jim Garner or Ford or men with kad knees or backs. Think Brian dennehy without so much fat or Sean Connery in the untouchables. Refined pigs with slight limps and grim determination. No smiling out loud. No excessive emotions. If we shake hands its very firm and we do not rub or fondle.

Hilary may think she is Clint Eastwood but her smile and face is pure Bugs Bunny. Her husband looks like a big snickering hyena from a Walt Disney cartoon at this point. Not good optics. Think Boris and Natasha or Rockey and Bullwinkle. Not good. Think wicked which of the west with Bill as one of her flying monkeys.

Come to think of it Obama looks like the Scarecrow and McCain the Tin Man with Romney definitely the security detail guy from Star Trek who was always killed since the regulars on the show couldn't be.

If I was going to vote for a female President I would vote Judge Judy. Straight men appreciate genuine ball busters.

I am sorry the idea of Hilary in a short dress frightens straight men. Its a fact. We do not trust big thighs unless they are on Beyonce. We wouldn't vote for Beyonce though because her boyfriend looks like the guy that we picked on in elementary school and now has grown up and owns guns.

[Ergonomic]

It is remarkable that the US is treating this election as an internal matter. The US has been a global player on a level above the UN given its willingness to use its ultra-tech military ability to enforce its policies. The US should be seeking external input. Of course it will not. It has yet to declare its primary foreign policy issue.

Meanwhile, China and India are stealing a march....

If Hillary Clinton gets elected, it's all for naught. She has shown no inclination to vary from Bill Clinton's screwed up foreign policy.

If Obama gets elected, he might be more open to alternatives, but he has done little to declare foriegn policy an important issue beyond Iraq.

If McCain gets elected it's more of the same old. McCain is delusional.

Not a single one of them has shown any inclination to pay any attention to Canada's needs, in spite of the fact that we are currently the most important raw materials supplier they have.

Studs Terkel put it very well on a BBC interview recently: The result of the current administration's One Billion dollar foreign policy has been to deny healthcare, deny social services, and deny the welfare of everyday ordinary Americans.

Review your RRSP investments closely. The new boss should not be the same as the old boss., but they are gonna get fooled again...

I love America. It has given the world so much, but the almighty buck has gotta stop right here.