Well I don't think PP are about to get the Queens medal for gallantry on this one Gearoid. Al Gore could probably get a poll bounce if he decides to enter, but typically such things are temporary and opportune and the voters tend to revert to type within a few months. Johny come lately gatecrashers haven't got a good record.
It goes without saying HS, that me corraling 5 Americans is hardly going to be representative of a country of about 350M, but there's no shortage of them in Oxford and they're normally quite obliging to discuss the elections provided you're able to explain early that you're after their observations and predictions rather than an opinion (the latter invariably follows anyway once they feel comfortable to talk about issues). What they will be able to do is reflect the mood of the country, provided I'm able to ask the right questions.
The observation that struck me as being perhaps the most pertinent was that Obama was likely to be cut less slack than any other candidate in the event of a few gaffs. His advocacy for bombing Pakistan recently wasn't necessarily the smartest move for a war weary population, for instance, and as he remains largely unproven and unknown, it's only going to require a few injudicious comments to spark a degree of nervousness
It was observed in 1992 that Bill Clinton had done something hitherto unheard of post war - he won an election based laregly on the economy and a domestic agenda. Some commentators spoke about the landscape changing etc and denied of their traditional anti-commie foreign policy positions, Republicans were going to have to re-invent themselves. To some extent you could argue they did, it's just that they converted it into some kind of neo evangelical crusade about morality (remember "compassionate Conservatism"?) - GW Bush.
I personally think what happened, is that America had grown complacent and decadent with the Clinton years and a sense of security had taken hold etc Things seemed quite straight forward around the turn of the century, and they reverted to voting for personality rather than substance (the cult of the personality over the party, the individual over a philosophy etc) has always been a much bigger feature of American elections than ours for instance. As I've noted before, in America its the candidates name that adorns the plackards, T-Shirts and badges etc In this country of course it's the parties. Anyway, the jokesy, folksey Governor from Texas had more charisma than the largely wooden Gore.
Americans don't particularly root for the underdog either, they prefer to associate with success, and that Gore has already lost one election won't count in his favour, though it's not without precedent of course for a defeated candidate to win the Whitehouse, and there are chilling paralells with the prevailing conditions that last allowed it to happen. Similarly, Americans don't like being duped, and increasingly it appears they've finally wisened up to Bush 8 years late. Their response is usually to punish the associated, and I note that the Republicans are drifting, as the Democrats go even further odds on.
