To celebrate today’s primaries in Michigan, I hereby present presidential election open thread number two.
Author: William Bowe
William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.
View all posts by William Bowe
46 Centaur
It depends which primary.
In “Open” primaries, you can register as independent and vote in either one (not both) on Primary day.
In “Closed” primaries, you have to register as a party affiliate to be able to vote.
I have also read of “wide-open” primaries where you can both, but that was 10 years ago. And rare.
I haven’t been able to find any recent references to this practice.
Associated Press confirmed the truce between Hillary and Obama. About time.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jld3VILFDbEY6uciu_lp_YgBnGqwD8U61CJG0
Kirribilli Removals, thanks for that link to Hitchens’ article. Highly entertaining, looking forward to his election year comments on Latteline.
Interesting to read so many of you writing off Obama as unelectable. I couldn’t disagree more. He is nowhere as polarising as Clinton and the experience thing is one of the great frauds being peddled by the pro-Clinton camp in the media. Keep in mind the lack of experience of some of the other recent inhabitants of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue:
Bush junior – 5.5 years as Governor
Reagan – 8 years as Governor
Carter – 4 years as Governor
In terms of intellect, he is streets ahead of the current incumbent and Reagan.
If not for her spouse Hillary’s candidacy would be a joke.
I reckon Obama is a huge chance for the nomination and the Dems’ best chance in November
I also reckon McCain would easily beat either of the Dem frontrunner provided his health (as opposed to his age) does not become an issue and he doesn’t install an evangelical like John Thune or Sam Brownback as his running mate
49
red wombat
When Rudy ‘finds religion’ you just know he’s desperate! Excellent insight into another ego maniacal power monger prepared to do or say anything to ressurrect his flagging popularity.
Big Rudy is toast.
Gosh! Guilianni managed to sup with God and the Devil at the same time! Now that’s hutspaht!
Diogenes @ 50 – I’m sure that whatever qualms GWB may have about Harris are well tempered by the knowledge that he owes his presidency to her. She’s the one who ordered thousands of, mostly black – ie. Democrat, voters be struck off Florida’s electoral roll ahead of the 2004 election and supervised the ‘hanging chad’ and other recount nonsense.
50
Diogenes
Rudy and the certifiable religious nutcase…oh, what a bewdiful couple they make!
Unless Rudy suddenly gets the stigmata visited upon him, he’s got buckley’s chance of convincing the religious right he’s their man. Zip, nada, bupkis!
Good lordy, lordy, I’m enjoying this site!
or for the literate: hutspah
Sigh
Thanx steve @ 16and Ben Raue @21, for the updates. Very interesting and much appreciated. And for A-C @ 22 i dont think he is a twit because he is a mormon. I think he is a twit cause he is a spoilt little rich kid that sputs flip flopy crap to try and win. The man clearly has more dollars than cents. You see he is a twit “AND” a mormon.
The people talking about ‘Nothing wrong with Obama, but he’s black and noone will vote for him in the general’ are either cowards or looking for a way to justify supporting Clinton. Do you really think the people who wouldn’t vote for Obama based on race are otherwise dying to vote democrat? The racial voters are hard R anyway. More to the point, if the fear is energizing the republican base, the woman Rush Limbaugh despises above all others will be more than capable of doing that.
Also, the republican race is a hilarious mish mash of evil and incompetence. Who do the rightwingers on this site support? The best of a bad bunch is probably old man McCain, and even he’s desperately keen for another war.
Erytnicam @ 60. While it is very true alot of the openly racist people are hard republican Obama’s race will cost him votes particularly in the South. One fact is the lack of compolsory voting. Many republicans are disenchanted with the party and will most likely just not vote at all. This in itself is a big victory. The other more important group are the closet racists who will use the excuse of inexperience or his voting in the senate(being from the party’s left does not help in the south). I think the rise of one nation is a good example that no “major” party has a monopoly on racist tendencies. Pauline Hanson won the safe Labor seat of Oxley remember?
All that said i do believe Obama can win. Its just he does not have the flexibility of Clinton or Edwards in states like Arkansas North Carolina, Kentucky, Florida or tennessee
Actually Mayoferal – its chutzpah.
Scotty the old confederacy is 138 votes – a nice block but not essential to win – look west young man.
ESJ (from previus thread),
I did not know there were unelected super delegates at the Democrat Convention. In that case, the presidential election will be Hillary Clinton versus John McCain. Barack Obama is young enough to have another go in 2012 or 2016.
63- if Clinton gets the nom it rules out Obama for around 16 years – Incumbents are notoriously hard to defeat and its custom for the VP to have a crack at running afterwards (current VP Darth Cheney excepted) The only way for Obama to have a crack in 4 or 8 years is if you believe Clinton could lose this one, and while she is the only one who could lose for the Dems, its too important for the Supreme Court that some Democrat get in for the Dem and independant base to get out and support her.
Actually the Dems don’t need to win the South or the West, or anything new in the West anyway. As I showed here the other day, all they need to do is win the states that Kerry won in 2004, plus Ohio – surely not hard in the current climate, provided they don’t do anything silly like nominate a someone with no experience and ultra-liberal views. They should forget about the South and nominate an all-Northern ticket, although I think in fact Bill Richardson is the best VP candidate they have.
Edward StJohn @ 62. You are absolutley right. Thats why i said i believed he can win. Thats why i used the word “flexible.”
The democrats have almost twice the college votes the votes they need to win (20 if i am correct). Ohio alone is worth 20. With the booting out of unpopular former governor Bob Taft in a series of scandels including “coingate” and the popularity of his replacement Ted Strickland. The republicans there are for the most part economic concervaties and would be unhappy with the economy. Iowa and Virginia between them have enough to push the democrats over the line. Iowa should have never been lost and the changing of laws to allow former prisoners to vote futher strengthens their position. Virginia has been experiencing very great demographic change in the northern half. A population boom in the suburbs and sattelite towns of Washington D.c and the extremley popular former governor Mark Warner’s presence for the senate tickets provides great mooching opertunities. Missouri is Illinois’s neighbour(however it is also Arkansas). If someone could enlighten me how they even lost West Virginia it would be much appreciated. They would be favourites in New Mexico also. Indianna is abit of a surprise but they have become very unpoupular on a state level. But i feel they may be like the good people of Ryan and North Sydney.
So Ruff estimate that comes to aboot 72. But if Michigan or pennsylvania were lost(somehow) then thats a big dent.
Adam @ 65 [provided they don’t do anything silly like nominate a someone with no experience and ultra-liberal views]
So, if you were with the Democrat’s campaign bosses in the bunker, you would be trying to ensure Obama and Edwards don’t get the nomination over Clinton regardless of what the party members in the various states want? Are you seriously saying those two guys have ‘ultra-liberal’ views? How far out in the purple side of the spectrum are you? Also, don’t you realise you are running exactly the line about ‘those inexperienced radicals’ run by the Howard govt in the campaign here?
It’s not that Obama and Edwards are ultra-liberal, it’s that Clinton is much more conservative. For example, as I’ve asked before, how is Clinton going to make a difference in foreign affairs when she prides herself so loudly on being a great friend of Israel?
I do realise that the party heavies in the Dems will ensure that the most likely to win candidate will end up with the nomination, but I also hope against the odds that Obama or Edwards can strike a chord with the electorate on real change and be that candidate instead of ‘safe’ Clinton, even if the difference will in practice be marginal. Don’t you?
Or are you locked into the poll-driven (eg ALP Right & LNP) view of the world – follow, don’t lead?
The Democrats could lose Michigan in the presidential. The state is rust bucket and the governor – Jennifer Granholm (dem) is on the nose.
It is a fallacy to just say – win what you won last time plus Ohio. Just look at how many times the Democrats have won Ohio since 1948 – not many!!
Finally why not go for the big win to be safe – it means you have to win in the West (traditional republican territory) or in the South.
Also states swing – West Virginia (inc+st territory) was reliabily democrat until Al Gore came along with environmental issues – went down a treat in coal miners daughter territory.
Best bets for the Dems to switch:
Arkansas
Virginia
Colorado
New Mexico
Nevada
Arizona (assuming McCain is not the Republican nominee)
Iowa?
Ohio
Having said that it wont even be close (assuming no major stuff ups) Hilary will get 1 or 2 southern states and 1 or 2 in the west as well as Ohio IMHO.
BTW I recommend Mark Penn’s Microtrends.
According to Adam’s archive – the Dems have won Ohio in 3 out of 12 presidential elections.
Adam,
Refer you to KR’s link@ 43 above- a withering but illuminating display of why the Clinton’s should not be returned the the oval office- their actions were the antithesis of liberalism. But will the voters care? Suspect emotional appeal will win out.
(am further intrigued by Hitching’s book “No-one left to lie to”….so many books,so little time… )
The Dems will make gains in the Reps and the Senate. But the presidency is problematical if the Repugs nominate McCain and the Dems go for Clinton or Obama. Edwards would be their best bet in the absence of Gore and Richardson.
Sorry, Apostrophe man,
….Clintons should not…
Mea culpa.
The depth of ignorance about the US at this thread is really a bit depressing. The US is a very conservative country, far more so than Australia. This reflects its great wealth, its religiosity, its complex regional identities and its history. US politics are not class-based, they are identity and history based. Example: Why does east Tennessee vote Republican and west Tennessee vote Democrat?
Comparisons with the Australian election are facile and foolish. There is no real comparison. Rudd was able to run on a basically class issue (WorkChoices) and win depite his relative lack of experience. You can’t do that in the US.
Applying the standard outlook of the Australian left, as most posters here are trying to do, simply does not enable you to have any understanding of the US political process, as the comment about Israel above shows. The US LOVES Israel, because most Americans see it as part of God’s plan. Americans do not want “real change,” they want at most incremental reform, which is in any case all that their legislative process allows.
Yes, by US standards Obama and Edwards are ultra-liberals. Edwards at least wraps his radicalism up in southern populist rhetoric – Obama is a pure Harvard elite leftist: he’s a black John Kerry, though not as dull. The US has not elected a northern liberal since 1960, and since then it has rejected five (Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry).
Clinton is not a northern liberal. She started out as a Mid-West conservative (her first political experience was campaigning for Goldwater in 1964), then became a southern centrist when she married Bill. Now she’s a New York moderate.
Obama’s problem is not just that he is an ultra-liberal, a complete novice, and black, it’s that he has no experience that Americans can identify with. He is an unknown quantity, and what is known is far too exotic for the taste of most Americans, who are a very insular people. Kenya? Indonesia? Harvard? This is not a CV the folks down home can relate to. Clinton, on the other hand, is a known quantity, even to those who don’t like her. There is a strong view, particularly among women, that she has “done her time” (both politically and domestically) and deserves a go.
The Dems have lost West Virginia because it’s a poor, white, religious, gun-toting, flag-saluting type of state that used to vote Dem for economic reasons, but now votes Repub for social-conservative reasons. Like most poor states, it sees military service as an opportunity as well as an honour. If I say “Abu Ghraib” here, everyone thinks “US war crimes.” If I say “Abu Ghraib” in WV, everyone thinks of Lynndie England, the down-home girl who served her country in Iraq and was shamefully scapegoated for Abu Ghraib while her seniors all got off.
I can see it’s going to be a long year 🙂
Adam- While I agree with almost everything you’ve said (in a nutshell a country that elected George W TWICE is not going to move far to the left in one hit) how do you explain the polls of head-to-head showing McCain v Clinton being a 5% win to Repugs and Obama v McCain being 50/50?
Adam
thank you for that very enlightening analysis,it helps explain the schizophrenic nature of the usa
have you a feeling that the dems may in fact “grab defeat from the jaws of victory”
and if so who is your republican pick/choice
Cos the polling is soft Diogenes. Look at how much the primary polls move.
Obama and McCain will be crucified in the presidential.
One is not ready for prime time and the other is on reruns.
jaundiced view @ 67 wrote:
But it isn’t just Clinton. This is a requirement for all those wanting the job, both as candidates, and for the winner, as Prez. Whatever they may personally think, they have to give 120% unqualified support for Israel. Its mandatory if you want to win and keep the job.
As much as some have claimed otherwise, no president or American government since 1947 has been a true honest broker when it comes to Israel and the Palestinians. So, at least on this, there will be little change no matter who wins.
Nor do I see any great difference between Clinton, Obama and the Repubs on Iraq (or Iran). Only one of the candidates, Edwards, has explicitely promised to not only withdraw combat troops from Iraq, but also close the ‘enduring’ bases. Whether he could actually keep the promise is a moot point.
I know they only need to win Ohio and not loose anything. But what is plan B.
In my View
Plan A. Ohio + watever.
plan B Virginia 13, Iowa 7+
Plan C Virginia 13, Missouri 11+
Plan D Virginia 13, W Virginia 5, New Mexico 5 +
Plan E Virginia 13, New Mexico 5, Nervada5+
Plan F Virginia 13, W Virginia5, Nervada5
plan G Iowa7 Nervada5,W Virginia5, New mexico5
Plan K Missouri 11, iowa7 W Virginia5
Plan I Missouri 11, iowa7 New Mexico 5
Plan J Missouri 11,Iowa7 Nevada 5
Plan K Missouri 11, New Mexico5, West Virginia5
Plan L Iowa7, New Mexico5, Nevada 5, Montana3
Plan M FLorida 27
I disagree with ESJ about McCain. He is the perfect Repub candidate except for his age, and I think voters will be willing to overlook that unless he actually dribbles on stage or something. He’s vastly superior to any of the others on offer.
MayoFeral do you have a “problem” with j.ws?
McCain has a reputation for a nasty temper. Reagan dealt with the age issue with humour.
Who are McCain’s bitter enders, ie who dies in a ditch with him. Its not for nothing that every president has brought his “mafia” to Washington.
This link from RCP http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/01/how_do_you_solve_a_problem_lik.html, basically argues the conservative leadership will sink him.
Finally I agree with most of your post Adam, but even in the States when poor white boys come home in body bags or maimed being a supporter of Iraq is going to hurt in November. He is probably the pick of the Republican litter but he is dead meat regardless come November.
Once again, the assumption is that US politicians only support Israel because they feel obliged to, or because AIPAC forces them to. This is crap. As I said above, most Americans LOVE Israel, which they think of as Brooklyn-on-the-Mediterranean, a small semi-American democracy being attacked by assorted jabbering towel-heads. On top of that, the evangelicals (a very large block of voters) support Israel because they see it as the fulfilment of biblical prophecy and part of God’s plan.
Adam said “If I say “Abu Ghraib” here, everyone thinks “US war crimes.” If I say “Abu Ghraib” in WV, everyone thinks of Lynndie England, the down-home girl who served her country in Iraq and was shamefully scapegoated for Abu Ghraib while her seniors all got off.”
Having read a book on the psychology of the Abu Ghraib torture, I actually have to agree with the West Virginians. The soldiers who were in the photos got GROSSLY disproportionately severe punishments compared with many others who weren’t dumb enough to appear in the New Yorker. If you “waterboarded” someone to death, it was a reprimand and maybe drop in rank, but if you were in a photo you got a couple of books thrown at you to try and convince the world that the abuse was case of a couple of “bad apples” rather than the real problem which was the “bad barrel” the apples were in.
Well I have finally gotten to the Right of ESJ. Let loud hosannas ring.
Nah Adam I think it is a unity ticket. Most Israelis are cool people.
I misunderstood – on Clinton v McCain. I think the Clintons are cool too!
ESJ asked MayoFeral if he/she “had a problem with J*ws.” This misses the point. In US political discourse, Israelis are not J*ws, they are Israelis. Even Americans who don’t like J*ws support Israel – they don’t connect their negative image of “the J*ws” with the swashbuckling Israelis they see on TV. This was in fact the whole point of the Zionist project, to create a “new J*w” who could break with old stereotypes of J*wish character and behaviour.
Amnesty for Jonathon Pollard?
About West Virginia. That may be true. But it seems to me there is more to it than that. Their treachery pre dates iraq. They are far less religous than somewhere like South Carlonia and probablly even Tennessee. The north is heavily influential more than east Virginia. Also unlike Texas South Carolina, Alabama ect, like North Carolina they are still extremley compedative on a state level. Which seems to be the main battleground on guns,death penalty ect
Adam @ 73 You sound weary from the relentless stream of ignorance you must put up with! However, the posts here are not ignorant in my view, but rather just a bit hopeful that a sufficient number of Americans might be ready for some ever so small political change.
Yes of course Americans are a lot more conservative, insular and religious than Australians. Yes, all US politicians must go along with these realities to an extent.
It remains true though that until there is some stepping back from current US political and arms support for Israel, a solution in the middle-east is out of reach.
It’s a bit like the Irishman when asked help with directions, ‘ Ooh, I wouldn’t be starting from here’. From where Clinton is starting on the middle-east makes it harder for her to ‘step back a little’ than it would be for Obama or Edwards, who don’t proclaim about support for the status quo like Clinton.
It’s all a matter of degree, and there could be slight movements away from the religious extremists, the Isreali zealots and the foreign policy hawks if it isn’t Clinton.
Obama and Edwards are more likely to lead change (that is, actually attempt to take the people with them on policy that may not have majority support at firstl), and not be totally captive of the vested interests, than is Clinton. That distinction between following or leading is applicable here and there – it’s a fairly basic political principle. It doesn’t display a lack of understanding.
And the polls at this stage do not rule out Obama, even head-to head with McCain as Diogenes says. He is also doing better than Clinton at that level.
Edward StJohn @ 80 – No. Do you? Or with the Palestinians?
I do sometimes have a “problem” with what Israel does. But then I have had exactly the same “problem” with things Australia has done, especially in the last decade.
“It remains true though that until there is some stepping back from current US political and arms support for Israel, a solution in the middle-east is out of reach.”
You prove my point, JV. That statement may be objectively true (that’s another debate), but politically it is totally irrelevant. Most Americans don’t want “a solution in the middle-east.” They want Israel to beat the towel-heads, and if they are evangelicals they also want God’s people to prevail.
Israel is a pluralist democratic island in a sea of autocracy. The Israelis or J.ws have done an amazing thing since 1948 in setting up a prosperous democratic state in one of the most backward parts of the world from NOTHING.
The Palestinians are not democratic and are basically run by a corrupt clique. Recommend you read WHAT’s LEFT? Mayoferal.
Basically most Western lefties think sacrificing Israel would solve all of the world’s problems, how convenient hey? Essentially Israel is a strong bulwark for the West which should be defended.
I do realise that the party heavies in the Dems will ensure that the most likely to win candidate will end up with the nomination…
I prefer Edwards way more than either Obama or Clinton. I ended up with him on that web-questionnaire thingy too — even though I didn’t understand about half the questions, let alone the answers, and just randomly guessed. Like – what do I know (or care) about US federal income tax policy? But he doesn’t seem to be having much luck in the popularity stakes over there, which is a pity.
.
Its just my impression, but Obama appears to me as token bland vanilla, a non-entity, without substance, and I personally can’t buy into the hype around him. Clinton carries the baggage of her hub, and it would be electing Bill again – a tad too far to the right of centre for my taste. But at least we probably wouldn’t be subjected to any new versions of Monica Lewinsky’s and their unwashed dresses dominating international news, during another two-year Siege of Sarajevo, and related Crimes Against Humanity. Interesting how little desire there was to interfere in that, as in Rwanda. No oil, no spoils, I guess.
.
Just my own cynicism, but ever since I spent years watching those atrocities happening in a modern industrialised country, and seeing the whole planet basically *shrug*, but especially the USA, bound up in their President’s genital soap-opera, I have NEVER believed *any* US pollie, when they have started on about removing dictators like Saddam, and feeling *morally obligated* to “restore democracy and freedom”, or supporting women’s or any other minority’s rights. It obviously depends solely, and only, on what wealth they happen to be sitting on, geographically and/or economically speaking, before anybody, especially the USA, can rile up any moral outrage in a speech, let alone *doing something* about it.
.
So while others might dislike Hilary Clinton for supporting Iraq – I turned off the Clinton name long before, and it may be unfair and illogical, but to me, Hilary is just Blinky-Bill-with-Boobs. I guess Dems are justifiably no different to Repugs when it comes to US national self-interest, and I can’t see Obama being any different. He will toe the Party Line too. But Dems are still a huge improvement on the alternative, and definitely the lesser of two evils!
.
But, whichever way the Nominations fall, I suspect as jaundiced view @ 67 the Party machine will consider which one is most likely to *win*, and that may also depend heavily on who wins the Repug nomination. Regardless of who ends up winning the beauty contest amongst the Dem Party faithful, and what deals might get struck on VP running mates, they still have to be a “winning team” for the Democrat Party for the Big One in November.
.
So I’m waiting until Feb 5 with some more info, on who is in the running for the Repugs, before I take a punt!
I suggest you stop stop making wild assumption and putting words in my mouth ESJ.
My impression is that Americans like ‘winners’, and often the justice question comes much later,if at all.(One only has to walk their streets to see the disinterest in those who cannot make the grade.)
Israel is also a ‘new’ country, with a similar sense of entitlement as the US. BTW, I am a subscriber to ‘Jewish Voice for Peace’, just in case I am accused of anti-semitism. Why the sensitivity with writing ‘J.w’ when no-one hesitates to write ‘C-tholic’ nor ‘M-slim’? This ‘special’ treatment is worrying, creating an exception/elite.
Israel of course also has a very long standing socialist tradition. Interesting that many on the left now treat it as an illegitimate child.
Because Megan I think Williams filter blocks the unexpurgated version.
Megan, they are trying to avoid the filters I have in place so I can moderate sensitive areas of discussion (cue complaint from Adam), which I’m quite happy for trustworthy commenters to do.
Thanks,ESJ.