cube: Now, I know this might be a bit naive, but does anyone know of a source for both Clinton's and Obama's stated policy positions? At the moment, I'm operating on instinct that Hillary isn't much more than a hawk not too far from the current administration who helped screw up healthcare reform last time round, and so anyone even vaguely to her left would be preferable, which is what Obama seems to be, but it would be nice to know what they actually stand for.
They have websites. The opinions expressed there are going to be focus-group tested and blah blah blah, and they should be taken with a grain of salt, but that's true for anything a candidate or his campaign put out.
cube: it sounds like he's actually using his brain, which is a refreshing change. I'm sure the focus groups will soon see to that, of course, yet it sounds promising.
Crack Dossier: I'm pretty sure speechwriters, communications people, and so on, were involved in that speech as well, you know.
Usually, the sorts of people that run the candidate's campaign are the same sorts of people who run the President's administration once they get in, so their speeches are actually a pretty good indicator of how they'll govern in some respects, if you keep your bullshit filters active.
Tabitha Tickletooth: Does this really play well with Democrat-voting Americans?
Yes.
Tabitha Tickletooth: It certainly doesn't reflect the attitude of Americans I meet, although obviously that is a very small sample here in the UK and in Australia. Do American posters, or indeed others more knowledgable about this, believe that this is a stance that still appeals to US voters on the left (as it were)?
Left? We don't have one of those - a few angry bohemians and college students hanging around coffee shops doesn't really amount to much in the grand scheme of things. We have a right and a center, and this appeals to the center.
It's a good strategy, too. It reclaims the politically potent symbolism of American supremacy for a centrist agenda, and essentially gives people permission to embrace political positions that many on the right have devoted a great deal of time and resources to smearing as un-American.
There's an element of truth to it, too. The economic and military power of the US does afford whoever is in the White House a lot of opportunities for real leadership. Equally important, American obstinacy and inertia tends to become a massive impediment to other people making change (see: Kyoto). The President has a lot of influence over the direction of America, and the choices America makes have huge ripple effects elsewhere.
Tsuga: I wonder, though. If it does get close to the convention with a very close delegate count, and it went to a brokered convention, could the discounting of some delegates come back and bite the DNC in the ass (so to speak)? That is a rather big if, admittedly.
One, it's a huge "if," and it's never going to happen, at least on the Dem side. It's pretty unlikely on the GOP side, too. A brokered convention would be an unmitigated disaster for either party and they will do everything in their power to avoid it.
Two, no, it can't bite them on the ass, because if it ever gets to be problematic, they can just decide to admit the delegates, which they're probably going to do between the primaries and the convention anyway, once everything is settled.
The delegates have no real meaning, or least haven't in any recent election.
That doesn't mean they won't again, especially on the GOP side, which is a lot less coherent. Right now, the Dems are down to a two-person race, which will almost certainly be resolved Feb 5, and the supporters of the losing candidate will rally to the side of the winner without many problems. The
PatrickMM: It's an awful, awful system, one where barely anyone has a real say in who gets chosen as the nominee, and it's a real travesty that no one is speaking out to change things. New Hampshire and Iowa do not represent all of America, and there should be a series of regional primaries on a rotating basis or something like that instead of what we have now.
Well, a lot of people actually do want to make the necessary drastic changes, but no one wants to be the guy who takes a bold stand in favor of drastically reducing the clout of Iowa and New Hampshire if they're not 150% sure that those drastic changes will actually go through. If you're the guy arguing for reducing the power of Iowa and NH, and they don't actually lose their power, you and your favorite candidates get killed in Iowa and NH next time around. |
