A feeling seems to be developing that Barack Obama is the 'inevitable' next President and simply needs to 'play it safe' to be inaugurated next January.
This assumption, whilst heart-warming to those who see in Obama America's best bet to tackle poverty, climate change and restore some of their dented prestige in the world, amounts to wishful thinking, for several key reasons.
He could simply be robbed
Finally, onto the most depressing - but very real - prospect that Obama would be supported by the majority of eligible voters but still not reach the White House.
There is a very strong possibility that 'dirty tricks' - in the shape of eccentric voting laws that will act to prevent blacks coming out in the force they are expected to, could cost Obama. It is essential his camp are able to exploit the black vote fully, but the flaw in the US voting system, giving states power over the rules for voting, means they could be prevented from doing so.
As the Guardian reports, "Indiana introduced a law in 2005 requiring voters to have a government-issued driving licence that includes photo ID. Fair voting rights groups and Democrats claim this discriminates against poor people, many of whom do not have cars. The Indiana supreme court upheld the new law in April this year." Patently unfair, undemocratic and unconstitutional it may be - but the Republicans will stop at nothing to win this election.
With a national lead of 7% Obama is in good shape. But hold the champagne on ice: there is still an uncomfortably high chance of Sarah Palin being a heartbeat away from the presidency.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Why Obama is not so inevitable (3)
A feeling seems to be developing that Barack Obama is the 'inevitable' next President and simply needs to 'play it safe' to be inaugurated next January.
This assumption, whilst heart-warming to those who see in Obama America's best bet to tackle poverty, climate change and restore some of their dented prestige in the world, amounts to wishful thinking, for several key reasons.
Game changers
The possiblity remains for significant game changers, with a terrorist attack being the one that would benefit McCain the most, enabling him to shift the focus of the election from the economy onto national security. Even if one such external event is not forthcoming, however, hope remains for McCain.
The third debate will be a seminal moment in the race - Obama has shaded the first two, but by an essentially insignificant amount, and McCain will unleash all he has.
Then there is the legendary GOP attack machine. The issue of Reverand Jeremiah Wright has been kept mysteriously quiet recently - perhaps the Republicans are planning to use it as the basis for a series of last-minute attack ads. Conservative columnists, radio and talk show hosts will also do all they can to stop Obama gaining election.
This assumption, whilst heart-warming to those who see in Obama America's best bet to tackle poverty, climate change and restore some of their dented prestige in the world, amounts to wishful thinking, for several key reasons.
Game changers
The possiblity remains for significant game changers, with a terrorist attack being the one that would benefit McCain the most, enabling him to shift the focus of the election from the economy onto national security. Even if one such external event is not forthcoming, however, hope remains for McCain.
The third debate will be a seminal moment in the race - Obama has shaded the first two, but by an essentially insignificant amount, and McCain will unleash all he has.
Then there is the legendary GOP attack machine. The issue of Reverand Jeremiah Wright has been kept mysteriously quiet recently - perhaps the Republicans are planning to use it as the basis for a series of last-minute attack ads. Conservative columnists, radio and talk show hosts will also do all they can to stop Obama gaining election.
Why Obama is not so inevitable (2)
A feeling seems to be developing that Barack Obama is the 'inevitable' next President and simply needs to 'play it safe' to be inaugurated next January.
This assumption, whilst heart-warming to those who see in Obama America's best bet to tackle poverty, climate change and restore some of their dented prestige in the world, amounts to wishful thinking, for several key reasons.
Precedents
There are plenty of precedents of nominees recovering dramatically in the polls in the month prior to an election - by a much larger amount than John McCain needs to this time round.
In 2000, Al Gore trailed by over 15% in the popular vote prior to the Democratic convention, and recovered to win the popular vote.
In 1980 the race was neck-and-neck lamost till the end. Then Ronald Reagan allayed fears his views were too extremist, and promptly crushed Jimmy Carter - and the key coalition of 'Reagan Democrats' was born.
The 1976 election is seen as being determined by Gerald Ford's infamous gaffe, when he claimed there was no Soviet Union domination in Poland. Yet, while it is true this terrible error in a Presidential debate handed Carter a huge lead, it did not last. In the end, running an uninspiring campaign that rather foreshadowed his presidency, Carter clung on to win, but by a margin that was closer than any other election from 1916 to 2000.
This assumption, whilst heart-warming to those who see in Obama America's best bet to tackle poverty, climate change and restore some of their dented prestige in the world, amounts to wishful thinking, for several key reasons.
Precedents
There are plenty of precedents of nominees recovering dramatically in the polls in the month prior to an election - by a much larger amount than John McCain needs to this time round.
In 2000, Al Gore trailed by over 15% in the popular vote prior to the Democratic convention, and recovered to win the popular vote.
In 1980 the race was neck-and-neck lamost till the end. Then Ronald Reagan allayed fears his views were too extremist, and promptly crushed Jimmy Carter - and the key coalition of 'Reagan Democrats' was born.
The 1976 election is seen as being determined by Gerald Ford's infamous gaffe, when he claimed there was no Soviet Union domination in Poland. Yet, while it is true this terrible error in a Presidential debate handed Carter a huge lead, it did not last. In the end, running an uninspiring campaign that rather foreshadowed his presidency, Carter clung on to win, but by a margin that was closer than any other election from 1916 to 2000.
Why Obama is not so inevitable (1)
A feeling seems to be developing that Barack Obama is the 'inevitable' next President and simply needs to 'play it safe' to be inaugurated next January.
This assumption, whilst heart-warming to those who see in Obama America's best bet to tackle poverty, climate change and restore some of their dented prestige in the world, amounts to wishful thinking, for several key reasons.
The hidden racist vote
Remember when the Tories' poll numbers had to be lifted a few percentage points in polls because people were embarassed to tell Tories where their allegiances lay? A similar thing may be happenning now - white Americans, for fear of being seen as racist may be claiming they intend to vote Obama when they have no such intention. And pollsters do not appear to be taking this 'closet racist' factor into account.
This assumption, whilst heart-warming to those who see in Obama America's best bet to tackle poverty, climate change and restore some of their dented prestige in the world, amounts to wishful thinking, for several key reasons.
The hidden racist vote
Remember when the Tories' poll numbers had to be lifted a few percentage points in polls because people were embarassed to tell Tories where their allegiances lay? A similar thing may be happenning now - white Americans, for fear of being seen as racist may be claiming they intend to vote Obama when they have no such intention. And pollsters do not appear to be taking this 'closet racist' factor into account.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Palin and 'Reaganomics'
Though selected as running mate primarily to energise the Republican base, Sarah Palin is positioning herself as the champion of “hard-working” and “middle-class” families.
It is a paradox exposed by the manner in which she espouses the virtues of Ronald Reagan. But redneck Americans have long baffled commentators through voting against their economic interests. If they do so again, it will offer the McCain-Palin ticket their best chance of election to the White House.
In her speech at a rally in Pennyslvania today, Palin made attempts to persuade that elusive group of voters – middle America – that they would be better off under a third term for the Republicans. She claimed her ticket’s tax-cutting measures would stimulate business, with the result that there would be more jobs available for America’s poor. Such a claim is reliant upon voters voting based on “qualities” of the candidates rather than digging deeper into the intricacies of the policies they actually advocate.
For those who have studied the respective tax plans of McCain and Obama are in no doubt that, under Obama, at least 80% of Americans would be made better off. Indeed, research by the Tax Policy Centre shows Obama’s plan would make the poorest 20% of Americans over 5% better off, which would be funded by hikes for not the “middle class”, as his opponents have suggested, but for the phenomenally wealthy. The top 1% would lose by 8% under Obama’s plan.
Conversely, under McCain, both the very bottom and very top would be made better off. So what’s to argue with? The devil is in the detail; whilst McCain and Palin are portraying themselves as willing to take on Wall Street, their tax plans would make the top 1% of the population 2% better off. As for the bottom 20%, they will gain, yes – but by a completely trivial and irrelevant 0.2%.
So the argument Palin advanced today is completely bereft of meaningful substance. Amidst all her attacks on Barack Obama came the claim that, through freezing “non-essential” public spending the ticket would balance the federal budget within their first term. Such a claim evokes the “voodoo economics” George Bush Senior attacked Ronald Reagan over in 1980.
And, while Reagan continues to be revered today, there are important points about his legacy that need to be accentuated by the Obama camp. It was under Reagan that the budget deficit initially ballooned, putting it on the way to the crippling levels of today. And, as she explicitly praised Reagan’s economic policies, Palin opted to ignore the fact they seriously damaged the poorer workers whose support is essential if she is to be the new Vice-President.
It is a paradox exposed by the manner in which she espouses the virtues of Ronald Reagan. But redneck Americans have long baffled commentators through voting against their economic interests. If they do so again, it will offer the McCain-Palin ticket their best chance of election to the White House.
In her speech at a rally in Pennyslvania today, Palin made attempts to persuade that elusive group of voters – middle America – that they would be better off under a third term for the Republicans. She claimed her ticket’s tax-cutting measures would stimulate business, with the result that there would be more jobs available for America’s poor. Such a claim is reliant upon voters voting based on “qualities” of the candidates rather than digging deeper into the intricacies of the policies they actually advocate.
For those who have studied the respective tax plans of McCain and Obama are in no doubt that, under Obama, at least 80% of Americans would be made better off. Indeed, research by the Tax Policy Centre shows Obama’s plan would make the poorest 20% of Americans over 5% better off, which would be funded by hikes for not the “middle class”, as his opponents have suggested, but for the phenomenally wealthy. The top 1% would lose by 8% under Obama’s plan.
Conversely, under McCain, both the very bottom and very top would be made better off. So what’s to argue with? The devil is in the detail; whilst McCain and Palin are portraying themselves as willing to take on Wall Street, their tax plans would make the top 1% of the population 2% better off. As for the bottom 20%, they will gain, yes – but by a completely trivial and irrelevant 0.2%.
So the argument Palin advanced today is completely bereft of meaningful substance. Amidst all her attacks on Barack Obama came the claim that, through freezing “non-essential” public spending the ticket would balance the federal budget within their first term. Such a claim evokes the “voodoo economics” George Bush Senior attacked Ronald Reagan over in 1980.
And, while Reagan continues to be revered today, there are important points about his legacy that need to be accentuated by the Obama camp. It was under Reagan that the budget deficit initially ballooned, putting it on the way to the crippling levels of today. And, as she explicitly praised Reagan’s economic policies, Palin opted to ignore the fact they seriously damaged the poorer workers whose support is essential if she is to be the new Vice-President.
Welcome
What's this blog for?
Essentially, I hope this will be a platform for interesting musings on politics and political history - especially of Great Britain and the United States, where my greatest interest lie.
I should probably add that I have no qualifications except a curious mind and healthy cynicism.
Happy reading - and if you have anything to say about the blog or its topics, I would love to read your comments.
Essentially, I hope this will be a platform for interesting musings on politics and political history - especially of Great Britain and the United States, where my greatest interest lie.
I should probably add that I have no qualifications except a curious mind and healthy cynicism.
Happy reading - and if you have anything to say about the blog or its topics, I would love to read your comments.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
