Coloured or female US President?

[Carlos G.]

Just to continue the former debate we were having and since important days are coming for the Democrats, I open this thread for those interested in the US elections (at least interested in the way the democratic candidate is choosen).

Both seem to be "good friends" now... Do you believe that is true or just show for the masses?

[Half Bottle]

No, they don't like each other very much.

It seems likely that the "Super Tuesday" primary on Feb 5 will offer no real further clarity on the identiy of the nominee (but the polls have been wrong before, so we shall just have to see).

I am personally excited for the next primaries after Super Tuesday because those happen to include my area. On Feb 12, just three primaries will be held (in Maryland, DC and Virginia). These should shape up to favor Obama. DC has a majority African-American population, which is a constituency that normally favors him. Maryland also has a sizeable black community, but also has a lot of wealthy, well-educated white votes (especially in the DC suburbs) and that's the particular sub-segment of the white vote that has tended to back Obama in earlier primaries. Finally, Virginia has all of the above in it's major population centers, plus it is an open primary in which Independents can vote, another category that has heavily favored Obama.

Bottom line: unless he gets trounced on Super Tuesday, Obama could be poised for a triple win (and a bunch of momentum) in the primaries that come next.


Oh, also, the Obama Campaign reports raising $32m in January, a simply staggering amount.

[David Hilditch]

...On Feb 12, just three primaries will be held (in Maryland, DC and Virginia). These should shape up to favor Obama. DC has a majority African-American population, which is a constituency that normally favors him.

HB, does DC take primary election delegates to the conventions ? How does that work ?

I tend to think Clinton will do fairly well in the Super Tuesday states, but I also sense a gathering momentum for Obama overall. I just wish I knew what change and hope actually mean. It's all rather pious.

[Half Bottle]

...On Feb 12, just three primaries will be held (in Maryland, DC and Virginia). These should shape up to favor Obama. DC has a majority African-American population, which is a constituency that normally favors him.

HB, does DC take primary election delegates to the conventions ? How does that work ?

Yes, DC does field delegates to the convention (I think it's 37 or 39). Also, I should point out that there are primaries between Feb 5 and Feb 12 in places like Maine, Nebraska, Washington, and a few others.

I tend to think Clinton will do fairly well in the Super Tuesday states, but I also sense a gathering momentum for Obama overall. I just wish I knew what change and hope actually mean. It's all rather pious.

It's all rather fascinating. I agree and if I had to predict, I would think Clinton will take about 60-65% of the delegates on Super Tuesday, but that it will still be close enough that the race goes on with the Feb 9 and Feb 12 races becoming critical.

What a great year for political junkies!

[J]

HB, does DC take primary election delegates to the conventions ? How does that work ?

I tend to think Clinton will do fairly well in the Super Tuesday states, but I also sense a gathering momentum for Obama overall. I just wish I knew what change and hope actually mean. It's all rather pious.

I belive DC has 3 delegates for the electoral college.

[Half Bottle]

I belive DC has 3 delegates for the electoral college.

This is a true statement, although (as noted above) it's not the same number for delegates to the party nominating conventions.



(Also -- major hair splitting time -- the electoral college representatives are technically called electors and not delegates).

[Half Bottle]

Also, just to keep things confusing, the delegate count I cited above for DC is for the democratic convention only. DC also fields delegates to the GOP convention but it is a different number. The Republican convention has fewer delegates overall (I think a candidate needs just over a thousand delegates to win the GOP nomination as compared to more than 2,000 needed to win the democratic nomination).

[ZeroAltitude]

I read an article in "Der Spiegel" several days ago claiming that a "dream ticket" Clinton-Obama would have great chances of actually making it into the White House.
The article went on to say that this combination, with Clinton as president and Obama as VP would have all the advantages:
Clinton would bring her experience (after all she already was de-facto-president before), and would break ground as first female president, and Obama would be the first colored VP, plus he could collect all the experience needed to make a go for it in 2016 (and he would then still be young enough to do it)

Your thoughts?

[Half Bottle]

Personally, I think a Clinton-Obama ticket makes sense (assuming Obama doesn't win the nomination outright, of course). But I still think that it is more likely that Clinton would pick someone from a strategic state like Ohio or Florida or a strategic region, like the South or Southwest.

But it's not out of the realm of possibility, no.

[Carlos G.]

Just going a bit OT here, but on the GOP side is it more or less clear now that McCain will be the candidate?

As for Z.A.'s comment, what the "Spiegel" says is obviously a plausible cenario, I think, but I'm an outsider I don't really know the "politically thinking" going on in the US. Are they really that close - as personalities - to allow them to work together for the good of the american nation? I have my doubts...

For those able to understand german here is a very interesting article of a german financial magazine about the difficulties in the US to run smoothly "Tsunami Tuesday":

http://www.handelsblatt.com/News/Politi ... chaos.html

and here an update on the latest debate between the democratic candidates:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... refer=home

Obama, an Illinois senator, said he and New York Senator Clinton were friends ``before we started this campaign,'' and ``I will be friends with Hillary Clinton after this campaign is over.''

Sounds good, doesn't it?

[Half Bottle]

As for Z.A.'s comment, what the "Spiegel" says is obviously a plausible cenario, I think, but I'm an outsider I don't really know the "politically thinking" going on in the US. Are they really that close - as personalities - to allow them to work together for the good of the american nation? I have my doubts...

Perhaps not, but that hasn't often been a goal in selecting a VP. Actually, one of the best examples recently of a president choosing a VP he thought he could work with was Bush/Cheney and you saw how that turned out.

Clinton and Gore were not close at all. Bush the First called Reagan's policies "voodoo economics". LBJ and Kennedy never trusted each other. And the list goes on.

[GerryW]

.... LBJ and Kennedy never trusted each other. And the list goes on.

...and we know what happened.

[ZeroAltitude]

.... LBJ and Kennedy never trusted each other. And the list goes on.

...and we know what happened.

But that's another story ...

[RadarContactLost]

[quote="Carlos G."]Just going a bit OT here, but on the GOP side is it more or less clear now that McCain will be the candidate?[quote]

The hard core Republicans are upset that McCain isn't conservative enough for them. They've lost sight of the fact that it's almost always a lesser of two evils choice. They are to the point of saying, "If we can't have our conservative candidate, we're not going to participate." If the far right writes itself off, McCain will have to move closer to the center to get middle of the road voters, which will drive even more of the right wing away.

[willezurmacht]

"Coloured"??? It is not 1957.

[Half Bottle]

"Coloured"??? It is not 1957.

I thought about this, too, but assumed it must be a term less anachronistic in other parts of the world. Still, I wonder if it might some day come back in use here. After all, with a black Kenyan father and a white Kansas mother, I wonder how Obama self-identifies?

[Schorsch]

Nobody thinks McCain might win the race?
I mean, if I was Democrat I would hope for Romney making the pre-election and guaranteeing for a relaxed election campaign of either Obama or Clinton.
If Obama goes versus McCain, it is the Washington insider versus the "hope is change" guy. I cannot think like the American voter, but electing somebody for the "change of hope" seems questionable.

[ZeroAltitude]

I cannot think like the American voter, but electing somebody for the "change of hope" seems questionable.

I can't think like Americen voters either, but questionable choices seem to be something like a tradition. Look who's occupying the White House now (OK, granted - the first time around it wasn't really their choice).

[David Hilditch]

I cannot think like the American voter, but electing somebody for the "change of hope" seems questionable.

I can't think like Americen voters either, but questionable choices seem to be something like a tradition. Look who's occupying the White House now (OK, granted - the first time around it wasn't really their choice).

There's a lot of discussion here about "experience" versus not having the baggage of being a Washington operator/insider. It's mostly pretty bogus. The US, as you say, has often elected "inexperienced" politicians, and sometimes it works (Kennedy, though that can be debated) and sometimes it doesn't. At the same time "experience" sometimes doesn't work (eg. Bush 43 who was once credited with having an "experienced" administration). While we are told the country craves "change" and a new approach blah blah, much if it is media driven and conducted in shallow sound bytes. That all being said, someone like Obama may inspire large numbers of people. A McCain versus Obama contest will be fascinating, and McCain could do very well.

[Schorsch]

I cannot think like the American voter, but electing somebody for the "change of hope" seems questionable.

I can't think like Americen voters either, but questionable choices seem to be something like a tradition. Look who's occupying the White House now (OK, granted - the first time around it wasn't really their choice).

There's a lot of discussion here about "experience" versus not having the baggage of being a Washington operator/insider. It's mostly pretty bogus. The US, as you say, has often elected "inexperienced" politicians, and sometimes it works (Kennedy, though that can be debated) and sometimes it doesn't. At the same time "experience" sometimes doesn't work (eg. Bush 43 who was once credited with having an "experienced" administration). While we are told the country craves "change" and a new approach blah blah, much if it is media driven and conducted in shallow sound bytes. That all being said, someone like Obama may inspire large numbers of people. A McCain versus Obama contest will be fascinating, and McCain could do very well.

Did the Bush government screw up due to lack of experience, lack of judgment or because they were a bit one sided on some issues? Actually, I guess a good proportion of the voters did not think it screwed up until recently they got the Iraq-sickness and now want peace (the same way they wanted war in 2003). The "voter" is basically an irrational idiot wearing a fact-proof jacket all the time (in pretty much all democracies except for Vatikan city). He may vote the "right" people, but then often for the "wrong" reasons.

If Kennedy wasn't been shot he probably may have become a one-termer.

[Half Bottle]

Did the Bush government screw up due to lack of experience, lack of judgment or because they were a bit one sided on some issues?

My opinion is that it was a combination of:

1) Bush's personal lack of experience, which he sought to offset by bringing in more experienced managers (e.g., Cheney/Rumsfeld) to compensate.
2) Bush's lack of intellectual curiosity allowed his more experienced managers to have too much sway over him.
3) Bush's desire to be a CEO and treat Cheney as COO. While there's nothing necessarily wrong with that model in general, in this instance there were too many idealogues running the show and, in combination with #2, it was deadly.

We've had plenty of inexperienced Presidents, depending on how you measure experience. Some did well and some did poorly. Same for the experienced ones. What matters, I think, is whether the experiences they did have fit with the times and how flexible they were to adjust to the ever-changing conditions facing any presidency.

[MikeD]

I voted for Ron Paul today.

[Pipe]

I voted for Ron Paul today.

Screw Ron Paul .......................Deputy, is that really YOU?

Pipe

[MikeD]

I voted for Ron Paul today.

Screw Ron Paul .......................Deputy, is that really YOU?

Pipe

One and the same, been a busy couple of years.

[Sabre]

I voted for Ron Paul today.

Screw Ron Paul .......................

Pipe

Indeed. We just need to repeal the 22nd amendment..........