U.S. Presidential Elections 2008

[August1991]

I can remember just how wrong people here were about the mid-terms. I think we are seeing something similar now.

You keep harping on that midterm election Dobbin as if it were some groundbreaking shift. Since at least 1958, the party of the sitting president has always done poorly in the midterm of the second mandate. Moreover, Americans don't like having their troops abroad. (The midterms are a bit like byelections in Canada. They're a way to send a message.)

Anyway, all of this is neither here nor there because McCain isn't going to win this election - it's the Democrats who are going to lose it. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the Dems do well in some races but poorly in the presidential. IOW, there's going to be cross-ticket voting - McCain's coat tails may not be that strong.

Obama speaks well, he has a cigarette smokers gravelly voice, and he has charisma. Initially, I thought that Clinton would win but it now appears that she doesn't have the numbers. Maybe, just maybe, she'll get the superdelegates on side. (If she does that, she'll loose the support of many pro-Obama voters.) Indeed, this Democratic race has all the makings of a snarky blow-up with one of the two taking his ball and going home.

Anyway, this too is neither here nor there because it just doesn't matter what the Dems do - whether united or not. Hillary's negative are far too high and Obama is far too left and far too inexperienced. As people are getting to know him, it doesn't look all that good. (Comparing Hillary Clinton to Annie Oakley??)

When Time magazine puts a baby photo of Obama on the front cover, you just know that his campaign is going nowhere. This is not how a Democrat can win the White House. Maybe Obama can pray that Ross Perot will decide to run as an independent...

The Democrats have inspirational hope with Senator Obama, but that does not translate into political hope in November. However, it will make for a great Boondocks episode.

I'm tempted to say "Exactly!" except that I don't know what the Boondocks reference means and I recently got burned here by suggesting that if Fox Canada ever existed, they should have some guy named Ward Churchill (?) as a host. Then I discovered that Ward Churchill is some conspiracy whacko. Edited April 21, 2008 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

...I can remember just how wrong people here were about the mid-terms. I think we are seeing something similar now.

Whoa....weren't you the one who declared Senator McCain's campaign as dead and finished last July?

[jdobbin]

You keep harping on that midterm election Dobbin as if it were some groundbreaking shift. Since at least 1958, the party of the sitting president has always done poorly in the midterm of the second mandate. Moreover, Americans don't like having their troops abroad. (The midterms are a bit like byelections in Canada. They're a way to send a message.)

I keep pointing out that people here were dead wrong in their predictions that Republicans would hold both the Senate and the House.

I said back in 2006 and in July 2007 that Clinton, Obama and McCain would not be the nominees for the presidency. I believed that the Democrats would chose a westerner (I had Richardson in mind) and that the Republicans would chose a southerner (here I wasn't sure if Huckabee, Thompson or someone else might come to the fore). I was wrong. I completely missed the compelling support that Obama would draw or how women would support Clinton. I also missed how Huckabee and Romney would chase the same voters and leave room for McCain to move down the middle. As for Thompson, I was surprised at how little he seemed to want to run for office.

As for McCain, he was almost done with his support for the surge and other problems he had. The reduction in violence in Iraq and Romney and Huckabee fighting it out benefited him. Iraq is still a mess and violence is edging back up again. Iraqi soldiers abandoning the fight can't be good.

Just before the primaries began, I thought that Obama and Romney would be the nominees. I still think that is the case with Obama. With Romney, I completely was taken aback about how his Mormonism sored more negatively as a religion than it had 20 years earlier. That, and Huckabee, gave McCain the room to slide up the middle.

I think that Clinton and McCain are too associated with Iraq to win. They both have a lot of negatives in other regards as well.

I've certainly had my share of errors but the right wing's supreme confidence in McCain's win ignores the fact that McCain has to overcome some suspicion from his own party about whether he is the right man for the job.

Anyway, all of this is neither here nor there because McCain isn't going to win this election - it's the Democrats who are going to lose it. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the Dems do well in some races but poorly in the presidential. IOW, there's going to be cross-ticket voting - McCain's coat tails may not be that strong.

This is the same argument that I heard during the mid-terms.

[BubberMiley]

The United States hasn't changed that much in electoral terms, and it hasn't shifted to the left.

The overriding issues in this election will be health care, education, the war, and the economy. These are not issues that necessarily galvanize the left and right sides of the political spectrum. Both sides want affordable, accessible health care, both want their kids to get as good an education as possible, neither want to see soldiers dying needlessly, and everybody wants a healthy economy.

The country will vote for whomever they see can make positive change in these areas, and that's why McCain will lose.

[bush_cheney2004]

The overriding issues in this election will be health care, education, the war, and the economy....

Yea...same as in 2004. The red states are still red......

[BubberMiley]

Yea...same as in 2004. The red states are still red......

Except for those that turn blue.

[August1991]

I said back in 2006 and in July 2007 that Clinton, Obama and McCain would not be the nominees for the presidency. I believed that the Democrats would chose a westerner (I had Richardson in mind) and that the Republicans would chose a southerner (here I wasn't sure if Huckabee, Thompson or someone else might come to the fore). I was wrong. I completely missed the compelling support that Obama would draw or how women would support Clinton. I also missed how Huckabee and Romney would chase the same voters and leave room for McCain to move down the middle. As for Thompson, I was surprised at how little he seemed to want to run for office.

I went back through this thread quickly and recall thinking in 2007 that Clinton had the Democratic nomination all sewn up. I didn't realize that Obama would be a viable candidate. When he won a real primary in white-bread Wisconsin, I realized that he would likely win the nomination.

On the Republican side, in 2007, I thought - only seeing them on paper - Thompson or Romney would be the choice. It turns out that Thompson was too lazy and Romney was Mr. Phoney Plastic. (I first saw Romney in the debate in South Carolina.)

I frankly think that McCain has won the nomination by default - because otherwise I'd have said he's too old and he's got a little too much baggage (third blonde wife, Keating Five, economic know nothing, unpopular with conservative base).

When it became obvious that Edwards was going nowhere, and it would be either Obama or Clinton, I then realized that neither of these two can be president. I still think that. Why? Obama is a one-term senator from Illinois. His voting record, such as it is, is somewhere around Ted Kennedy. Almost 50% of Americans say that they will not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances. She's a Senator from New York. The last time the Democrats won the WH with a northern politician was JFK - and he barely won. If anything, it is harder now for a Democrat.

That's why I say that for a Democrat to win the presidency he or she has to do everything absolutely right. There's no margin for error. If you combined Hillary's political savvy and position with Obama's charisma, and put them into a politician from the South with the right drawl and populist respect, then maybe it would work - and you'd have Bill Clinton in 1992.

The overriding issues in this election will be health care, education, the war, and the economy. These are not issues that necessarily galvanize the left and right sides of the political spectrum. Both sides want affordable, accessible health care, both want their kids to get as good an education as possible, neither want to see soldiers dying needlessly, and everybody wants a healthy economy.

The country will vote for whomever they see can make positive change in these areas, and that's why McCain will lose.

The economy (or fears rather) and the war will ostensibly be the main issues in this campaign. But voters know that a president is surrounded by experts who advise what to do. They look for someone who has the good sense to listen to the experts and then decide. They're not hiring a dentist - they're hiring someone who will hire a dentist.

All of this plays to McCain because he has shown that he has the good sense to be president. He survived several years in a North Vietnamese prison camp. On the economy, they're going to go with the old guy and the steady hand rather than some thin young guy with the smooth voice and the glib, quick phrases.

As to the Iraq war, most Americans are not quitters and the idea of just leaving Iraq is anathema to them. 3000 soldiers died over there and McCain has made it plain that those deaths are not in vain. He won't abandon them.

Anyway Bubbler, apart from issues, Americans vote in part on a regional basis. (Not as much as Canadians but almost.) The other thread on rankings of presidents made me look at the geographic vote distribution of elections since the Civil War. (Between 1865 and 1912, Grover Cleveland was the only Democratic president.) The South always votes differently and Goldwater was the first Republican to get southern states in 1964. Since then, they always go Republican unless the Dems have a southern candidate. Obama's from Illinois and Clinton's from NY or Pennsylvania depending on the day of the week.

Dalton McGuinty has more chance of being PM of Canada than Obama or Clinton of making POTUS.

----

Incidentally, and last point, Canada is a Catholic country (about 50% of Canadians are Catholic - much of English Canada is Catholic too). The US is a protestant country - only about 20% of Americans are Catholic. I know that many people - particularly Catholics - are no longer practicing but they still have the same mind frame. Catholics in North America have always felt second class. That's why they're attracted to candidacies such as Obama or Clinton. Many Canadians favour the Democratic candidate and will be surprised when the Republican wins.

Edited April 21, 2008 by August1991

[Carinthia]

Many Canadians favour the Democratic candidate and will be surprised when the Republican wins.

Geez, your whole post was great until we got to this.

[August1991]

Another good article, this time by an American liberal:

This is how it's going to go. In the derisive commentary of the past two weeks, we can see how Obama is heading for the Kerry-Gore-Dukakis treatment. He will be cast as a 'professor' from the university enclave of Chicago's Hyde Park. And just as Kerry was heckled by conservatives for supposedly looking French, the campaign to define Obama as 'foreign', thanks to his Kenyan father and his boyhood years in Indonesia, is already underway.

...

Obama's campaign handlers have proven themselves a highly shrewd bunch. They are already working to bolster his regular-guy credibility - see Obama's recent photo-op at a Pennsylvania bowling alley and his endorsement by that ultimate salt-of-the-earth tribune, Bruce Springsteen.

Link

This guy gets it while criticizing the Republicans for what in effect is the basic problem of the Dems.

As for the bowling alley, Obama was less than a good bowler: Youtube: Obama pretending to be Homer Simpson

[sharkman]

Another good article, this time by an American liberal:Link

This guy gets it while criticizing the Republicans for what in effect is the basic problem of the Dems.

As for the bowling alley, Obama was less than a good bowler: Youtube: Obama pretending to be Homer Simpson

This reminds me of Obama's appearance on Ellen, attempting to dance up a storm during the intro. They are so desperate to have him seen as a regular guy.

[BubberMiley]

They are so desperate to have him seen as a regular guy.

If you look at his income, he's certainly the most regular guy to run for president in years.

[WIP]

If you look at his income, he's certainly the most regular guy to run for president in years.

It's hilarious how multimillionaires like Senators Clinton and McCain are calling Barach Obama the elitist. When I was channel-surfing on my car radio last week, I heard gasbag Limbaugh declare that elitism comes from a state of mind, not how much money you have. By his reckoning, the people living in the slums are the elitists and he and his Palm Beach neighbours who live in a gated community, are the regular people. Considering the "bitter" mood of the 82% of Americans who feel the country is headed in the wrong direction, I have a feeling that this B.S. isn't going to fly much longer!

[August1991]

It's hilarious how multimillionaires like Senators Clinton and McCain are calling Barach Obama the elitist. When I was channel-surfing on my car radio last week, I heard gasbag Limbaugh declare that elitism comes from a state of mind, not how much money you have.

University professors, of history for example, generally don't earn a lot of money. Yet they have a tendency to consider themselves superior and to look down on politicians who speak like ordinary folk and mangle sentence structure.

----

Anyway, it looks like Hillary will get her two-digit point spread over Obama. And here's a very telling statistic:

Practicing Pennsylvania Catholics (weekly massgoers, by the canonical definition) made up 17 percent of the vote in the Democratic primary. They went 71 to 28 percent for Hillary over Obama. Non-practicing Catholics made up 18 percent of the Democratic vote, and they went for Hillary 65 to 35 percent. Casey was in charge of Obama's Catholic outreach.

Link

IOW, Obama has lost the Reagan Democrat vote. Bill Clinton, John Kennedy and even Jimmy Carter managed to keep the black vote and the Catholic vote together. These are critical for a Democratic presidential win.

[BubberMiley]

IOW, Obama has lost the Reagan Democrat vote. Bill Clinton, John Kennedy and even Jimmy Carter managed to keep the black vote and the Catholic vote together. These are critical for a Democratic presidential win.

Such analysis is based on the assumption people who vote for Hillary now won't vote for Obama in November. But that doesn't make any sense.

[August1991]

Such analysis is based on the assumption people who vote for Hillary now won't vote for Obama in November. But that doesn't make any sense.

Not voting for Obama also means just staying home. The turn out in US presidential elections is around 55%. The Obama Girl never voted for Obama in a primary.

Along these lines, here's an interesting map of primary results.

Clinton won mostly the blue states and Obama won mostly red states. IOW, the states where Obama won, he's going to lose in November. It's like letting Liberal party members in Alberta choose the leader of the federal Liberal party.

Another interesting point is that if the Democrats ran their primaries like the Republicans (winner take all), this whole business would be over by now and Clinton would be the nominee. Instead, the Democratic race is increasingly turning into one of those domestic disputes you hear through the thin walls of an apartment building. Someone is bound to bang on the ceiling and tell them all to shut up and go to bed.

[jbg]

Considering the "bitter" mood of the 82% of Americans who feel the country is headed in the wrong direction, I have a feeling that this B.S. isn't going to fly much longer!

You do not understand that the US is a conservative country.

[jbg]

Clinton won mostly the blue states and Obama won mostly red states. IOW, the states where Obama won, he's going to lose in November. It's like letting Liberal party members in Alberta choose the leader of the federal Liberal party.

I agree with your analysis but isn't that how Mulroney won the Leadership Convention that ultimately led to his 1984 victory; with supporters from normally non-Progressive Conservative ridings in Quebec?

[Guest American Woman]

You do not understand that the US is a conservative country.

Some parts of the U.S. are, but some parts aren't. I also think conservatives get out and vote more than liberals do; but if everyone voted, I think the country would be less conservative and actually lean towards liberal.

[Qwerty]

Just vote for the most left leaning candidate that way when the US gets blown up again and the Leftie Prez has turned the military into a daycare the people eon't have to wonder why they are being taken over.

[jbg]

Such analysis is based on the assumption people who vote for Hillary now won't vote for Obama in November. But that doesn't make any sense.

Not really. Obama and Hilary are both polarizing people, whereas McCain is, for better or worse bland. Either you love Hilary or Barack or you hate them. There's no middle ground.

Another aspect is that in the US, Hispanics rarely vote for blacks and vice versa. That is one reason that Giuliani defeated Dinkins (who is black)and Bloomberg defeated Ferrer (who is Hispanic). States like Iowa have surprisingly large numbers of each.

Some parts of the U.S. are, but some parts aren't. I also think conservatives get out and vote more than liberals do; but if everyone voted, I think the country would be less conservative and actually lean towards liberal.

The trouble with that analysis is that the non-conservatives are clustered on the West Coast and the northern part of the East Coast and to a lesser extent Chicago. While there are liberals in all states, in particular North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, Texas and Florida, their numbers are often insufficient to swamp the rural and backwoods vote in each of those states.

[WIP]

University professors, of history for example, generally don't earn a lot of money. Yet they have a tendency to consider themselves superior and to look down on politicians who speak like ordinary folk and mangle sentence structure.

Maybe when things were humming along fine, Americans could have a laugh at electing an illiterate boob as President; but in perilous times I would rather have an intelligent leader who can write his own speeches and communicate his thoughts - especially to an international audience! I get the feeling that alot of Americans want to fantasize that they could run the country better than the current leaders. So they elect idiots that they can feel superior to, and just about everyone can feel intellectually superior to G.W. Bush!

But, there is a price to pay for this lack of respect for the power of the presidency (especially the way that power has increased in the last 30 years) Right now, America may be the most hated nation in the world. And it's not just because of the usual jealousy, or the clumsy foreign policy of bureaucrats who think they are still running an empire that can impose its will anywhere it likes, anyplace in the world! No, part of the problem is the illiterate fool who can't communicate with foreign leaders. That's a minimum requirement this time around and unfortunately John McCain is also an intellectual lightweight who cannot engage in debate about his economic and foreign policies or even explain his thoughts on climate change beyond saying "I'm in favour of the Kyoto Protocol." More of the same from the Republican side and he'll be taken apart in a general election.

Anyway, it looks like Hillary will get her two-digit point spread over Obama. And here's a very telling statistic:Link

Even though they are an otherwise odd couple, it seems that Hilary shares the same qualities of selfishness and self-absorption that made her husband such an endearing political figure a decade ago. She has no chance of winning (ethically at least), so she's doing her best imitation of a female Sampson for the last two months and is determined to destroy the Party and her opponent's chance of winning if they won't have her this time! Hilary and Bill would rather have Obama lose to McCain so they can do this all over again in 2012. The Superdelegates and Democratic leaders are going to have to pull the plug and put her out of her misery or they will run some risk of giving away an easy election and there will be another Clinton run for the Whitehouse in four years.

IOW, Obama has lost the Reagan Democrat vote. Bill Clinton, John Kennedy and even Jimmy Carter managed to keep the black vote and the Catholic vote together. These are critical for a Democratic presidential win.

I know Republicans are having wet dreams about the faint hope an ugly Democratic primary has given them to maintain their hold on power, but don't forget how quickly messy leadership contests are forgotten as soon as the general election begins; especially when the governing party has the huge negatives of the present administration.

What could be messier than the 68 Democratic Convention? It wasn't just a contentious ugly debate, the convention was rigged for Hubert Humphrey and there was the nightmarish pictures on the T.V. of demonstrators in the park being attacked and beaten by Richard Daley's storm troopers. And yet Humphrey almost beat Nixon in the general election. Same thing in 76, when Gerald Ford had to carry the burden of Nixon's legacy and beating back an aggressive campaign from Ronald Reagan. But since Ford was getting the credit for turning around the economy and making some needed reforms during his two years in office, he almost pulled even with Jimmy Carter on election day.

[WIP]

You do not understand that the US is a conservative country.

I'm curious to find out how conservative they will remain after losing their jobs and having the bank foreclose on their houses!

[sharkman]

I'm curious as to the left's theories on how Bush Jr., otherwise known as the village idiot(funny how he got into Harvard) among that group, managed to get re-elected after 4 long years of idiocy. No doubt they are blaming everyone but themselves for being unable to present a viable alternative.

FYI, no president writes his own speeches. Nice thought though.

Edited April 23, 2008 by sharkman

[August1991]

I agree with your analysis but isn't that how Mulroney won the Leadership Convention that ultimately led to his 1984 victory; with supporters from normally non-Progressive Conservative ridings in Quebec?

The more appropriate comparison is Belinda Stronach winning the 2004 Tory leadership with her delegate support from Quebec. It would have been a disaster for the Tories and she wouldn't have won a seat in Quebec.

Not really. Obama and Hilary are both polarizing people, whereas McCain is, for better or worse bland. Either you love Hilary or Barack or you hate them. There's no middle ground.

This is an intriguing aspect of Obama's candidacy. Obama presents himself as someone who will unite Americans and who doesn't want to use the old political style of dividing by fear; and yet, Obama is among the most (American) liberal senators. He's also a divisive and polarizing politicians. Many Americans strongly disagree with his positions.

Maybe when things were humming along fine, Americans could have a laugh at electing an illiterate boob as President; but in perilous times I would rather have an intelligent leader who can write his own speeches and communicate his thoughts - especially to an international audience! I get the feeling that alot of Americans want to fantasize that they could run the country better than the current leaders. So they elect idiots that they can feel superior to, and just about everyone can feel intellectually superior to G.W. Bush!

The anti-Bush crowd have always made the mistake of playing the man, not the ball. By laughing at Bush, in effect, they're laughing at many ordinary Americans - precisely the people who the Dems would need to get elected.

WIP, you just sound like a snob which is hardly endearing to anyone. Anyway, it's quite obvious that you don't like Bush. You're entitled to your opinion. I would expect that at least 4 of 10 Americans share your opinion. The Dems will need other people to win in November.

[BubberMiley]

WIP, you just sound like a snob which is hardly endearing to anyone. Anyway, it's quite obvious that you don't like Bush. You're entitled to your opinion. I would expect that at least 4 of 10 Americans share your opinion. The Dems will need other people to win in November.

According to the most recent data, it's more like 7 of 10.

But there's a difference between having no respect for people of less-than-average intelligence and having no respect for a president of less-than-average intelligence. I ain't no particularly bright bulb neither, but I ain't running for no fancy job.

And though I don't think this characterizes Obama, I would expect someone in such a position to be in the position to look down on me.