The Next President?

In truth, I've never worked it out, but suspect it's got something to do with the comparative lack of a traditional left/ right partisan base, therefore the electorate seems less likely to lock themselves into entrenched positions associated with some kind of quasi philosophy. At one level you might say that's healthy, but at another level it makes them much more susceptible to vote on personality issues, and therefore more prone to become judgemental about seemingly spurious issues and images which we would frankly dismiss as irrelevant (religon perhaps being the most obvious). I also get the impression that the Americans are more prone to cast a vote a bit like they might select a meal from a menu, 'what do I fancy this evening' etc Can you seriously think of anywhere else in the Western world where shedding a tear would precipitate a swing of 15pts shrug:: Just how do you legislate for these kind of things? That's seismic and would require a candidate to be exposed as a criminal fraudster to achieve a similar impact in the UK in such a short time frame

3% is the normal acceptable margin for sampling error, some of these polls taken just 48 hours prior to the vote, were as much 15% wrong, which is a little under 1 in 7. Either voters were lying to pollsters, or a genuinely cavalier culture pervades, and New Hampshire would be considered one of the more sophisticated electorates, and less influenced by things such as who the bigger believer in God is etc. In truth, it should have been natural Clinton territory, as indeed the North East seaboard would be, but not for the first time, the Amercian electorate is making a fool of me :laughing: Mind you, listening to some of the commentators, I'm in pretty good company.

The Obama camp were reasonably bullish about winning a landslide when polls closed, so it suggests that their own private polling hadn't picked up on what was happening too. Indeed, Clinton's slightly humble speach afterwards hardly struck the tone of someone who expected to win either. I've been struck a few times when I've spoken to Americans about their voting intentions just how judgemental they are about things that we would normally regard as 'non issues', even to the point where they can't even articulate their reservations other than to say things like "I'm not voting for him/ her, there's something about them". Now the UK isn't of course immune to such unsubstantiated prejudiced either, but the post poll analysis will be interesting, as I'm sure there's going to be a few post mortems in the quest to try and understand what happened.

Expect a cry fest now cry

Wheel out Elizabeth Edwards to talk about her battle with cancer and cry all over the Carolina's please
 
Originally posted by Galileo@Jan 9 2008, 08:12 AM
While she may be "wooden" and she may have been helped by those tears (which I didnt find false) equally she is one heck of a candidate and debator.

Warbler you suggest the BBC is very partial to HC but there is absolutely no doubt the American press when into Obama overdrive pumping these polls out (10 point plus leads etc). They completely got caught up in the hype that is Obama rather than ask the hard questions of him rather than just let him talk about this mysterious thing called "change".

Clinton should probably struggle in South Carolina but this win will be a massive boost to her funding and puts her in fine shape for the big Tuesday in Feb.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't disagree, but then you should bear my current record in mind. The radio5 coverage was interesting last night. Richard Bacon pretty well stated that the BBC wouldn't be allowed to cover a UK election in the way it has the American primaries because of impartiality, though curiously the caller was accusing them of Obama bias, even though Hillary has been their lead in 80% of stories. Ch4 by contrast have been more prone to Obamaisation, though the caller did admit to taking his feed of Fox, so his credibility went up in smoke at that point. Unfortunately, no one pointed out that there is a not inconsiderable number of American voters living here, and the BBC should still have a public broadcast responsibility of sorts, even though I'd accept it's no where near as sensitive.

I felt Obama would get caught out for lack of substance, but expected it to happen much later on, and expected him to ride this wave into the convention. I also agree that the super dooper Tuesday helps Hillary as the impact of the Obama stump campaign where he clearly outperforms her, will be diluted.

The media can only report poll findings, they can't (or shouldn't) be making them up.

I'm at a bit of a loss, but then hey!!!! this is America and they often throw up strange results which fly in the face of expectation
 
Then I went to bed, Clinton's team were saying that anything less than a 10pt defeat was a moral victory. This has turned into a 3pt win by the time I woke up.

Tears alone don't account for that - the methods employed by the pollsters over there were fundamentally flawed because they were only asking previous, regular voters.

Once stories of extra ballots having to be shipped across the state because they'd run out of them in places started hitting the wire, the pollsters should have reacted by realising that this extra, unexpected turnout was effectively invalidating their data to a large degree.

Instead, they considered it an endorsement of their data, claiming it was down to the Obama-effect.

Idiots.
 
Crucial result and I wouldnt be at all suprised if lightweight Obana's campaign goes into a bit of a tailspin now. I hope so. He leaves me cold with little to offer other than vague drivel

I have always believed that Clinton would make a fine president and I believe she will win because after poor administrations (anywhere) voters tend to go for polar opposites.

Interestingly in South Carolina Obana does not hold a lead over Clinton despite the huge number of black voters in that state

Why didnt Rudi campaign?
 
have always believed that Clinton would make a fine president
Click to expand...

I'll admit to being more than a little lightweight when it comes to American politics, but it is my impression they have never had it so good when it comes to candidates. You would imagine it should always be the case that candidates for the job of leader of the free world are strong but I've always found most of them pretty objectionable.

Naturally good presidential candidates wont always make good presidents, but I would be quite happy with any of four of them.
 
Originally posted by Warbler@Jan 9 2008, 07:23 AM
serious dearth of talent
Click to expand...
Or a concerted media campaign by a particular mogul is doing its best to keep any talent they have out of the spotlight.
 
Have heard what seems like millions of different excuses for Obama's performance last night, ranging from the far-fetched (voters didn't bother looking far enough down the ballot for Obama, who was 25 lines below Clinton) to the legitimate (the University of New Hampshire, which would have been a reliable Obama stronghold, is not in session)..

The keys to Hillary's victory were the fact that she carried the womens vote quite comfortably (something she did not do in Iowa) and her strong performance among lower-income voters (100,000 or less).. whether it was the tears, New Hampshire voters (who, it must be said, take their responsibility very seriously) getting cold feet about Obama it is hard to know to be honest..

It's easy to label the pundits incompetent morons but the truth of the matter is Hillary's campaign didn't see this coming any more than the rest of us. What the polls could not take in to account was the fact that so many of the voters waited so late to make up their minds- something like 40% decided in the last three days.. btw, Gareth, though I certainly can't speak for all the polls, but a fair few of them included the views of independents, some of whom hadn't voted in years..

As for where it all goes from here, it really is hard to know. Obama will be very hard to beat in Nevada, given his endorsement today by the Culinary Workers Union, which will mobilise 15,000-20,000 strong in a state where turnout is unlikely to be much more than 40,000.. South Carolina looks like it could be a battle royale, pitting Hillary's deeply-embedded institutional support against Obama in a state that arguably favours him demographically..
 
If Obama wins the democratic vote, I'm led to believe that the Republicans are lining him up for a fall on three counts

[1] His pro-Palestinian views - of which there is apparently more evidence

[2] The fact that he regularly attends a church where a preacher espouses the benefits of isolationism

[3] Some kind of shady real estate deal he has been involved in at some stage in the past
 
Apart from 3 (which could be something or nothing) it wont be so much what he thinks about these issues as the seemingly inevitable waffling lightweight non commital answer that he would give. and there have been hints that hes not exactly on top of his brief with international matters

Hilary would be a different matter of course.
 
I thought a shady real estate deal was a mandatory requirement of any candidate?

I have alluded incidentally to a 'spectacular' with qualifying what I had in mind. Suffice to say there is something that has stalked the Clintons for years now and is well documented as defying the laws of averages. Where as some of the claims are far fetched and examples of fitting facts to suit a conspiracy, others do leave room for doubt. Anyway, according the Daily Express (I felt it necessary to qualify the source as the reliability can't be taken) a Clinton aide has been sanctioned for allegedly intimating that Obama would be shot if he got too close. :eek:

"One of the candidates is openly comparing himself favourably with John Kennedy. And we all know what happened to him".

Come to think of it, wasn't he an Illinois Senator too?. He was certainly the last Senator elected back in 1960, (America tends to elect state Governors). Having said that, I've got an idea he was Boston based rather than Chicago, but I'm sure the family had a Chicago base other than the mafia who managed to arrange for dead people to vote for him.

I would imagine the clue to his Palestinian views lies in his middle name and they'll and dig something from there?
 
JFK was Massachussets (as his brother still is). Plenty of in-law familial links and business links to Chicago, though.
 
Referring to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in January 2006, Obama denounced Hamas while praising former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. At a meeting with then Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom on the eve of Hamas' sweeping election victory,[33] Obama stated that Sharon's role in the conflict had always been "absolutely important and constructive."[34] At a meeting with Palestinian students two days later, Obama stated opposition to Hamas in favor of rival party Fatah, noting his desire to "consolidate behind a single government with a single authority that can then negotiate as a reliable partner with Israel." In a comment aimed at Hamas, he said that "the US will always side with Israel if Israel is threatened with destruction."[
Click to expand...

No quite the Palestinian views some might have been hoping for ? (although they make sense to me)
 
Barack Obama belongs to the Trinity United Church in Chicago whose pastor is Rev Dr Jeremiah A Wright Jnr. Here is the church’s website. From it you will see that the church is committed to what looks suspiciously like black supremacism. Dr Wright promotes ‘black power’ and ‘black liberation theology’, under which adherents must have

a non-negotiable commitment to Africa
and to seeing the world through an African perspective. The church proclaims its commitment to a ‘Black Value System’ which, apart from a commitment to
Pledge Allegiance to All Black Leadership Who Espouse and Embrace the Black Value System
includes the
Disavowal of the Pursuit of ‘Middleclassness’
on the basis that those who are not middle-class are separated from other black people by
*Killing them off directly, and/or fostering a social system that encourages them to kill off one another.
*Placing them in concentration camps, and/or structuring an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.
In the current issue of the church’s magazine The Trumpet, there is a star-struck endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, the racist, anti-white and anti-Jewish black supremacist Muslim demagogue. In her ‘Empowerment Interview’ in the magazine, which claims that the leader of the Nation of Islam is a much misunderstood man, writer Rhoda McKinney-Jones gushes that Farrakhan
truly epitomised greatness…
Such fawning is hardly surprising given that Dr Wright himself -- who in his sermons and interviews has equated Zionism with racism and Israel with apartheid South Africa, who said on the Sunday after 9/11 that the attacks were a consequence of violent American policies, and who suggested four years later that 9/11 was retribution for America’s racism ( views from which Obama has distanced himself) – appears to enjoy a close relationship with Farrakhan. In the Trumpet feature article, Wright raves:
Minister Farrakhan will be remembered as one of the 20th and 21st century giants of the African American religious experience...His integrity and honesty have secured him a place in history as one of the nation’s most powerful critics. His love for Africa and African American people has made him an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose.
And in this story on NewsMax, Ronald Kessler reports:
Just before Obama’s nationally televised campaign kickoff rally last Feb. 10, the candidate disinvited Wright from giving the public invocation. Wright explained: ‘When [Obama’s] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli’ to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, ‘a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.’
Considering the fact that the very mention of George W Bush’s belief in God is enough to give Democrats an aneurysm, and that Republican candidates Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are currently being dismissed as religious nutjobs, isn’t the Democrat (and media) silence over Obama’s choice of a black power church which is more akin to a cult, and the obnoxious views of the pastor who he says brought him into Christianity in the first place, more than a little remarkable?
And how have the Democrats got themselves into a position where the choice they offer voters for the American presidency is between Hillary Clinton and this man?
Click to expand...

By the ever excellent Melanie Philips. Well sourced information too

This is the lurking issue for Obama. A tricky one to play maybe but then again it really does undermime his "colour blind unity" meassage/waffle
 
Actually, looking at the PDF, Phillips has (wilfully?) misunderstood at least one part of it.

Phillips quotes:


Disavowal of the Pursuit of ‘Middleclassness’ on the basis that those who are not middle-class are separated from other black people by

*Killing them off directly, and/or fostering a social system that encourages them to kill off one another.

*Placing them in concentration camps, and/or structuring an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.
Click to expand...

What the pdf linked to actually states is:


Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”

Classic methodology on control of captives teaches that captors must keep the captive ignorant educationally, but trained sufficiently well to serve the system.

Also, the captors must be able to identify the “talented tenth” of those subjugated, especially those who show promise of providing the kind of leadership that might threaten the captor’s control.

Those so identified as [sic - should be 'are'?] separated from the rest of the people by:

Killing them off directly, and/or fostering a social system that encourages them to kill off one another.

Placing them in concentration camps, and/or structuring an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.

Seducing them into a socioeconomic class system which while training them to earn more dollars, hypnotizes them into believing they are better than others and teaches them to think in terms of “we” and “they” instead of “us”.

So, while it is permissible to chase “middle-incomeness” with all our might, we must avoid the third separation method-the psychological entrapment of Black “middleclassness”: If we avoid the snare, we will also diminish our “voluntary” contributions to methods A and B. And more importantly, Black people no longer will be deprived of their birthright, the leadership, resourcefulness, and example of their own talented persons.
Click to expand...

(emphasis mine above)

What is being put forward in the pdf is the theory of a systematic creation and maintainence of an underclass in which blacks are kept ignorant through methods such as denial of proper access to education.

Any black identified as having potential is seperated from their community by (direct quoting here):

a) Killing them off directly, and/or fostering a social system that encourages them to kill off one another.

b) Placing them in concentration camps, and/or structuring an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.

c) Seducing them into a socioeconomic class system which while training them to earn more dollars, hypnotizes them into believing they are better than others and teaches them to think in terms of “we” and “they” instead of “us”.

It is this final point c) which is being referred to as "middleclassness", not points a) and b) which she quotes.

Phillips' characterisation of that passage is totally incorrect.
 
Warbler

Its is surely not going to "play out" any differently in California than in Alabama

And it will definately not go down well in states with large jewish populations (ie Florida and New York)

In fairness, the links could be described as tenuous and there is absolutely no suggestion that he endorses the views but on the other hand he could easily be put on the spot about his associations
 
Possibly true Warbler but again (and i havent chcked this right through) it is a little suprising that he hasnt fully distanced himself from what is a racially exclusive organisation and one that seems to be obsessed with that very issue
 
Also think that his refusal to take questions (unlike Hilary) must have played out badly in NH.

These things register and I wouldnt be suprised if that was a factor because it endorses suspiciions that hes not confident and on top of his brief

If he continues with that line, hes finished
 
Back
Top