Elections in America, still no winner

Feb 11, 2008 01:42

Odds are good if you're reading my journal you're at least paying a little bit of attention to the US election campaigns currently still going. Not least because at the end of it all, the person elected gets control of enough nukes to blow up the world a few times, which is rarely the case in a foreign election. It's, um, a bit of a mess, n'est ( Read more... )

john mccain, barack obama, psephology, mike huckabee, us politics, primaries, hillary clinton, justin webb

Leave a comment

Comments 41

(The comment has been removed)

matgb February 11 2008, 12:41:34 UTC
Possibly, possibly. But I think a lot of USians are now beginning to catch up with the idea it might be good, besides which, it's the Washington system that needs changing, and even more of them never liked that anyway.

We'll see.

Reply

susanne_est_moi February 11 2008, 18:24:26 UTC
This is simply not true.

If anything, we just don't give half a damn about what the rest of the world thinks.

*le shrug*

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

mapp February 11 2008, 07:00:25 UTC
I agree; I can't see how Huckabee beating McCain would be a good thing. Just because we see him as a lunatic with no chance doesn't mean that he's not going to get elected President at the end of the day.

After all, how many Democrats or Republicans are actually going to vote for somebody of the other party?

Reply

matgb February 11 2008, 11:17:04 UTC
I'd rather see Huck as candidate than have him as VP nominee. McCain is too close to death.

Also? Party lines are a lot more blurred in the US, and independents/non-declared/never-before-voted make up a massive chunk, and they'll all turn out to stop the embarrassing creationist, he's too far off the bell curve.

Reply

mapp February 11 2008, 18:47:59 UTC
The other question is - how embarrassing to the American public is a creationist? Although I'll take this with a pinch of salt, I would say that being a creationist isn't actually going to lose you that many votes that you wouldn't have already lost anyway by dint of being a Republican.

And doesn't the current President of the USA wear his religion on his sleeve?

Reply


tyrell February 11 2008, 08:27:39 UTC
In other words, two lots of corporatist, money grabbing loons, with one side slightly less bad.

Yes.

Obama may not have it all sewn up yet. Today's Indy has a worrying piece - hispanics and old people vote for Clinton, and there's more of them in the next few states than black and young people. Absolutely appalling that it comes down to this, but the numbers seem pretty clear.

My brother made a transcript of the brilliant vid by Lawrence Lessig showing why Obama can make the hard decisions. He's the only choice now.

Reply

matgb February 11 2008, 11:22:16 UTC
The identity voting thing really does bother me a fair bit, but it's not clear cut. Different states may have similar demographics but that doesn't mean they vote the same way-look at Maine compared to New Hampshire for example. Texas will probably tell us a lot, but I think Barack has a good chance there.

Will look at the video later. Danke.

Reply


davegodfrey February 11 2008, 08:56:36 UTC
Obama's parents are both atheist/agnostic, and while he isn't, he has said that:

"Because I do not believe religious people have a monopoly on morality I would rather have someone who is grounded on morality and ethics and is also secular, affirm their morality, ethics and values without pretending they are something they are not."

I don't even want to repeat the dross Huckabee comes up with in comparison. Maybe we're seeing the first stirrings of a removal of religion from its prominent place in American politics?

Reply

innerbrat February 11 2008, 09:21:22 UTC
Obama has also given speeches that strongly imply he believes morality= religion.

Reply

blue_condition February 11 2008, 10:14:18 UTC
I would guess those speeches are made in the Bible Belt and the rational speeches are made in civilised states!

Reply

innerbrat February 11 2008, 10:22:03 UTC
So when a candidate contradicts himself, when are we supposed to take him seriously?

Reply


innerbrat February 11 2008, 09:23:01 UTC
Huckabee's a loon. A creationist. He's popular in the lunatic fringe that's hijacked the once-great Republican party that elected Lincoln and abolished slavery. If he gets the nomination, then regardless of who gets the Democrat candidacy, the Republicans will almost certainly get wiped out, in a landslide that'll make Blair's '97 win look like a marginal victory.
You have more faith in the general USian electorate than I do.

Reply

matgb February 11 2008, 11:29:30 UTC
I have a reasonable amount of faith in Downs. Slightly different perspective but Huckabee is too extreme and the centre ground wants change not another conservative loon (arguably they didn't realise he was a loon in '00 and were lied to in '04).

I might be wrong, but I really doubt it.

Reply

susanne_est_moi February 11 2008, 18:28:21 UTC
Mm, I'm glad there's at least one of you out there.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up