It has been over a month since i last posted. I apologise but i was on a very relaxing vacation.
The US election has been defying every pollster and pundit every week. Since Obama's win in Iowa and Hillary's win in New Hampshire everyone simply said that Super Tuesday would define a candidate.
Super Tuesday is when more than 22 states hold their primaries and is traditionally a nod to the future nominee of each party. John McCain is the expected nominee with Mitt Romney pulling out and Huckabee too far behind to be a significant threat. However Huckabee's continued presence in the Republican primaries is evident that the conservative base does not trust McCain with their nomination just yet.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton however are in a very tight race. Whilst Obama won more states he did not win the large delegates. Clinton won fewer states than Obama but won the states with the larger delegates. It appears that whilst more states liked Obama the electoral college swings in favour of Clinton.
The recent primaries held today in Maryland, Virginia and Washington D.C had Obama taking all of the delegates. It appears now that Obama has surpassed Clinton by 107 delegates. Whilst this is not a huge number of delegates it is important as it shows that the Obama-train is full steam ahead. With this momentum he won't have much trouble unseating Clinton in the next primary. Whilst i'm hesitant to call these primaries, considering everything that has been polled, i'm quite certain that Clinton will win several more primaries in the near future. However with Obama's momentum and the fact that his campaign is receiving over a million dollars a day in support (clinton's is around half that) and the free media exposure it is obvious that Barack Obama was the (no-pun intended) dark horse of the 2008 Presidential race. No one expected him to make a dent in the race but he has surprised us all. What we are seeing today and will continue to see in the future is the audacity of hope. A people so tired of two terms of Bush (and possibly afraid of another term of Clinton) that they will latch on to the charismatic leadership of a man demanding change for the people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_authority
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Why everyone got it wrong!
In the wake of the Clinton win in New Hampshire last night it seems that everyone is taking a closer look at the polls and wondering where they failed.
Many polls predicted an Obama landslide a'la Iowa but ended with Clinton winning by 3 points.
Does this mean that polls are unreliable, that we shouldn't trust them?
Many candidates and skeptical members of the public take polling data with a grain of salt. There are many variables that have to be taken into consideration when reading a poll. When the pollster called? Which member of the house they were speaking to? The gender? The skin colour? etc etc etc
Any number of these variables can skew a poll. The pollsters shut down their data collection services around 36 hours before the voting began. Doing that was a mistake because they missed the one event that changed this primary:
The tears almost shed by Hillary Clinton led to an outpouring of emotion from women and the elderly who drowned their sorrows in the voting booths by ticking the name 'Hillary Clinton'. Clinton, who was always lambasted for being to steely and never showing any emotion, won over these voters in the 36 hours that the polling booths were shut down. In this day and age of instant news it's well known that a single event can change the outcome of an election and this was that event. Polls should be open until the voters walk through the front door. After that they should conduct exit polls. Here's Hillary's victory speech, she seems as surprised as anyone else in the room:
I'm sure that polling will be scrutinized a great deal over the next several primaries up to Super Tuesday. I'm sure Barack Obama is feeling awful, he was floating on a cloud and a sure thing for the New Hampshire primary. As i stated in a previous post i'm sure that Obama will make an amazing president once he's had some on-the-job training, hopefully as Hillary's VP. I only hope that he realizes this before he gets too big for his own boots and implodes; denying America of an astounding politician.
Many polls predicted an Obama landslide a'la Iowa but ended with Clinton winning by 3 points.
Does this mean that polls are unreliable, that we shouldn't trust them?
Many candidates and skeptical members of the public take polling data with a grain of salt. There are many variables that have to be taken into consideration when reading a poll. When the pollster called? Which member of the house they were speaking to? The gender? The skin colour? etc etc etc
Any number of these variables can skew a poll. The pollsters shut down their data collection services around 36 hours before the voting began. Doing that was a mistake because they missed the one event that changed this primary:
The tears almost shed by Hillary Clinton led to an outpouring of emotion from women and the elderly who drowned their sorrows in the voting booths by ticking the name 'Hillary Clinton'. Clinton, who was always lambasted for being to steely and never showing any emotion, won over these voters in the 36 hours that the polling booths were shut down. In this day and age of instant news it's well known that a single event can change the outcome of an election and this was that event. Polls should be open until the voters walk through the front door. After that they should conduct exit polls. Here's Hillary's victory speech, she seems as surprised as anyone else in the room:
I'm sure that polling will be scrutinized a great deal over the next several primaries up to Super Tuesday. I'm sure Barack Obama is feeling awful, he was floating on a cloud and a sure thing for the New Hampshire primary. As i stated in a previous post i'm sure that Obama will make an amazing president once he's had some on-the-job training, hopefully as Hillary's VP. I only hope that he realizes this before he gets too big for his own boots and implodes; denying America of an astounding politician.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
New Hampshire
Well for the last few hours i've been sitting at my computer addicted to the drudgereport. John McCain was an early call, beating Mitt Romney by several points but Clinton and Obama were within 2-3% of each other for about 2 hours. Drudge is calling it for Hillary Clinton so i send her all the congratulations i can. To Barack Obama i only hope that this doesn't deflate the wind from your sails.
Lets see what happens come Super Tuesday.
Lets see what happens come Super Tuesday.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Interesting article in 'The Australian'
This was a very interesting article in the Australian newspaper. It comments once again, on the US Iowa caucus and Barack Obama. I'm going to be travelling for the next few weeks. I'll try to update throughout the month but i'll be back in the middle of February.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23013962-7583,00.html
A Democrat even Republicans can like
Andrew Sullivan | January 07, 2008
THE historical analogies for the phenomenon that is Barack Obama have already stretched credibility. For a while, pundits likened him to the Democratic Party's 1950s effete loser Adlai Stevenson. But Obama doesn't seem like such an airhead after his gritty, crushing defeat of Hillary Clinton in Iowa.
So now the favourite analogy is JFK: the young, hopeful rhetorician urging a New Frontier after two terms of conservatism. But that doesn't work either: John F. Kennedy won by out-hawking Richard Nixon in 1960, and Obama is a clear anti-Iraq war candidate. Bobby Kennedy is more apposite: a mix of inner steel and an evolving moral candidacy. Just as a vote for RFK in 1968 was seen by many as a form of collective self-absolution for Vietnam, so Obama resonates among many Americans who do not recognise what their country has become these past few years.
The analogy that worries Republicans the most is a more recent one. Could Obama be a potential liberal version of Ronald Reagan? Could he do for the Democrats what Reagan did for the Republicans a quarter century ago? It's increasingly possible. Reagan was the cutting edge of the previous realignment in US politics. With a good-natured civil appeal to Democrats who felt abandoned by their party under Jimmy Carter, Reagan revolutionised the reach of his party.
He didn't aim for a mere plurality, as Bill Clinton did. Nor did he go for a polarising 51 per cent strategy, as George W. Bush has done. He ran as a national candidate in search of a national mandate, a proud Republican who nonetheless wanted Democrats to vote for him.
He came out of a period in which Americans had become sickened by the incompetence of their government. Reagan shocked US elites by pivoting that discontent into a victory in 1980. And by his second term, he won 49 out of 50 states.
You can see the same potential in Obama. What has long been remarkable to me is how this liberal politician fails to alienate conservatives. In fact, many like him a great deal. His calm and reasoned demeanour, his crisp style, his refusal to engage in racial identity politics: these appeal to disaffected Republicans.
He is particularly attractive to those on the US Right who feel betrayed by the Bush administration's version of conservatism, just as many Democrats felt betrayed by Carter's liberalism.
These voters -- non-evangelical, fiscally and militarily prudent, socially tolerant -- do not feel at home in the angry, southern, anti-immigrant Republican Party of the past few years.
Almost one-quarter of those voting in the Democratic caucus last Thursday night were Republicans or independents. In both categories, Obama beat Hillary Clinton by more than two to one. In New Hampshire, independents are even more prevalent and may well represent 40 per cent of the Democratic vote. (In Iowa as well as New Hampshire, you can change your party registration on the day of the vote.)
Reagan won a national victory on the strength of Reagan Democrats. Obama could win with Obama Republicans. That's remarkable in itself. When you realise he's also a liberal urban black man whose middle name is Hussein, it's gobsmacking.
Put these disaffected Republicans together with a spectrum of minorities and a black vote potentially greater than at any time in history, and you begin to see what Obama offers his own party.
The other strikingly Reaganite aspect to Obama is his appeal to the younger generation. People forget that the oldest president was extremely popular among the under-30s.
Obama has an almost cult-like standing on college campuses. The youth vote is always touted every four years but never materialises on polling day. Last Thursday, it came out in force. In Iowa, where the over-65 cohort usually outnumbers the under-30s by five to one, the old and the young were evenly divided.
Among the under-30s, Obama beat Clinton by 57 per cent to 11 per cent.
This generation, moreover, is a huge one: the boomer echo. Between Bush pushing them and Obama pulling them, the Democrats' advantage could define a generation's politics. And that's increasingly Obama's ambition. He has kept his ego in check, but he is clearly aiming for a large mandate rather than a small win. He isn't a Clinton in this respect or even a Bush. He is a Reagan, a Margaret Thatcher of the Left.
Mike Huckabee, meanwhile, is being discounted as not significant in the same sense. But it is, I'd say, very foolish to underestimate him as well. In the wreckage of the post-Bush Republican Party, Huckabee is the most talented natural politician. And he has taken Bushism to its logical conclusion.
He argues, proudly and simply, for a politics based overwhelmingly on religion. He refuses to apologise for previous statements that he wants to reclaim America for Christ or that people with AIDS should be quarantined. In Iowa, he won the born-again vote and the vote of Bush fans. He's the kind of preacher who lets you know he likes a beer and knows his rock'n'roll. It works. One slogan seemed as powerful as it is simple: I Like Mike. And so many do.
And, unlike Bush, Huckabee has combined a belief in the paternalist state with a hostility to Wall Street.
He is a potential builder of a future Republicanism that is as socially conservative as it is economically populist: extremely hostile to illegal immigrants, gay couples and abortion, but just as angry at big corporations, free trade and the globalised gilded elites. In making the case against Mitt Romney -- a multimillionaire former business consultant -- Huckabee argued that it was a choice between the bloke you work with and the man who sacks you.
The simmering class resentment, which is just beneath the surface, clearly motivates his supporters. When they were attacked by Washington Republicans as know-nothings, they responded by surging to the polls. They can smell the condescension. And it angers them.
It may be that Huckabee, as the conventional wisdom has it, cannot win the nomination. Underfunded, underorganised and a foreign policy embarrassment, he is unlikely to win New Hampshire against that state's favourite old codger, John McCain, or the slick former governor of neighbouring Massachusetts, Romney.
But South Carolina, brimming with evangelicals, is another matter. And talent counts. Huckabee's underrated skills have already begun to bring in more established advisers such as former Reagan aide Ed Rollins (now Huckabee's campaign manager) and Bill Clinton's scruples-free guru Dick Morris. Clinton himself is a fan.
Even if Huckabee falters this time around, he represents a viable future for the Republicans, albeit a very different one from the past. Huckabee represents the consolidation of the Republicans as a southern, religious, working-class party.
If he wins the nomination, he could push a lot of economic conservatives into the Democratic camp, lose badly and yet reshape his party: a reverse Barry Goldwater, turning Republicanism into something closer to religious populism than Yankee conservatism.
There is, of course, a natural tendency to overestimate the import of a single caucus. But so far the underestimaters have been the ones who have got this election wrong. Washington's elites assumed a match between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani this year. But they didn't see the turmoil remaking the US, and the deep hunger for a new direction. As unrest grows in Pakistan, as the US economy looks headed for a nasty downturn, I see no reason to think that the forces behind Obama and Huckabee will abate soon.
Yes, history happens. And Americans, exhausted from fear and war and economic insecurity, have just informed us that they can shape it again. I wouldn't bet against them.
Andrew Sullivan is a columnist for Britain's The Times.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23013962-7583,00.html
A Democrat even Republicans can like
Andrew Sullivan | January 07, 2008
THE historical analogies for the phenomenon that is Barack Obama have already stretched credibility. For a while, pundits likened him to the Democratic Party's 1950s effete loser Adlai Stevenson. But Obama doesn't seem like such an airhead after his gritty, crushing defeat of Hillary Clinton in Iowa.
So now the favourite analogy is JFK: the young, hopeful rhetorician urging a New Frontier after two terms of conservatism. But that doesn't work either: John F. Kennedy won by out-hawking Richard Nixon in 1960, and Obama is a clear anti-Iraq war candidate. Bobby Kennedy is more apposite: a mix of inner steel and an evolving moral candidacy. Just as a vote for RFK in 1968 was seen by many as a form of collective self-absolution for Vietnam, so Obama resonates among many Americans who do not recognise what their country has become these past few years.
The analogy that worries Republicans the most is a more recent one. Could Obama be a potential liberal version of Ronald Reagan? Could he do for the Democrats what Reagan did for the Republicans a quarter century ago? It's increasingly possible. Reagan was the cutting edge of the previous realignment in US politics. With a good-natured civil appeal to Democrats who felt abandoned by their party under Jimmy Carter, Reagan revolutionised the reach of his party.
He didn't aim for a mere plurality, as Bill Clinton did. Nor did he go for a polarising 51 per cent strategy, as George W. Bush has done. He ran as a national candidate in search of a national mandate, a proud Republican who nonetheless wanted Democrats to vote for him.
He came out of a period in which Americans had become sickened by the incompetence of their government. Reagan shocked US elites by pivoting that discontent into a victory in 1980. And by his second term, he won 49 out of 50 states.
You can see the same potential in Obama. What has long been remarkable to me is how this liberal politician fails to alienate conservatives. In fact, many like him a great deal. His calm and reasoned demeanour, his crisp style, his refusal to engage in racial identity politics: these appeal to disaffected Republicans.
He is particularly attractive to those on the US Right who feel betrayed by the Bush administration's version of conservatism, just as many Democrats felt betrayed by Carter's liberalism.
These voters -- non-evangelical, fiscally and militarily prudent, socially tolerant -- do not feel at home in the angry, southern, anti-immigrant Republican Party of the past few years.
Almost one-quarter of those voting in the Democratic caucus last Thursday night were Republicans or independents. In both categories, Obama beat Hillary Clinton by more than two to one. In New Hampshire, independents are even more prevalent and may well represent 40 per cent of the Democratic vote. (In Iowa as well as New Hampshire, you can change your party registration on the day of the vote.)
Reagan won a national victory on the strength of Reagan Democrats. Obama could win with Obama Republicans. That's remarkable in itself. When you realise he's also a liberal urban black man whose middle name is Hussein, it's gobsmacking.
Put these disaffected Republicans together with a spectrum of minorities and a black vote potentially greater than at any time in history, and you begin to see what Obama offers his own party.
The other strikingly Reaganite aspect to Obama is his appeal to the younger generation. People forget that the oldest president was extremely popular among the under-30s.
Obama has an almost cult-like standing on college campuses. The youth vote is always touted every four years but never materialises on polling day. Last Thursday, it came out in force. In Iowa, where the over-65 cohort usually outnumbers the under-30s by five to one, the old and the young were evenly divided.
Among the under-30s, Obama beat Clinton by 57 per cent to 11 per cent.
This generation, moreover, is a huge one: the boomer echo. Between Bush pushing them and Obama pulling them, the Democrats' advantage could define a generation's politics. And that's increasingly Obama's ambition. He has kept his ego in check, but he is clearly aiming for a large mandate rather than a small win. He isn't a Clinton in this respect or even a Bush. He is a Reagan, a Margaret Thatcher of the Left.
Mike Huckabee, meanwhile, is being discounted as not significant in the same sense. But it is, I'd say, very foolish to underestimate him as well. In the wreckage of the post-Bush Republican Party, Huckabee is the most talented natural politician. And he has taken Bushism to its logical conclusion.
He argues, proudly and simply, for a politics based overwhelmingly on religion. He refuses to apologise for previous statements that he wants to reclaim America for Christ or that people with AIDS should be quarantined. In Iowa, he won the born-again vote and the vote of Bush fans. He's the kind of preacher who lets you know he likes a beer and knows his rock'n'roll. It works. One slogan seemed as powerful as it is simple: I Like Mike. And so many do.
And, unlike Bush, Huckabee has combined a belief in the paternalist state with a hostility to Wall Street.
He is a potential builder of a future Republicanism that is as socially conservative as it is economically populist: extremely hostile to illegal immigrants, gay couples and abortion, but just as angry at big corporations, free trade and the globalised gilded elites. In making the case against Mitt Romney -- a multimillionaire former business consultant -- Huckabee argued that it was a choice between the bloke you work with and the man who sacks you.
The simmering class resentment, which is just beneath the surface, clearly motivates his supporters. When they were attacked by Washington Republicans as know-nothings, they responded by surging to the polls. They can smell the condescension. And it angers them.
It may be that Huckabee, as the conventional wisdom has it, cannot win the nomination. Underfunded, underorganised and a foreign policy embarrassment, he is unlikely to win New Hampshire against that state's favourite old codger, John McCain, or the slick former governor of neighbouring Massachusetts, Romney.
But South Carolina, brimming with evangelicals, is another matter. And talent counts. Huckabee's underrated skills have already begun to bring in more established advisers such as former Reagan aide Ed Rollins (now Huckabee's campaign manager) and Bill Clinton's scruples-free guru Dick Morris. Clinton himself is a fan.
Even if Huckabee falters this time around, he represents a viable future for the Republicans, albeit a very different one from the past. Huckabee represents the consolidation of the Republicans as a southern, religious, working-class party.
If he wins the nomination, he could push a lot of economic conservatives into the Democratic camp, lose badly and yet reshape his party: a reverse Barry Goldwater, turning Republicanism into something closer to religious populism than Yankee conservatism.
There is, of course, a natural tendency to overestimate the import of a single caucus. But so far the underestimaters have been the ones who have got this election wrong. Washington's elites assumed a match between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani this year. But they didn't see the turmoil remaking the US, and the deep hunger for a new direction. As unrest grows in Pakistan, as the US economy looks headed for a nasty downturn, I see no reason to think that the forces behind Obama and Huckabee will abate soon.
Yes, history happens. And Americans, exhausted from fear and war and economic insecurity, have just informed us that they can shape it again. I wouldn't bet against them.
Andrew Sullivan is a columnist for Britain's The Times.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Barack Obama
It's hard not to be swept up in Obama-mania.
He's just won the Iowa caucus and is giving a rousing speech thanking the people for having faith in him.
Here is a charismatic young man who has overcome the adversity of youth, financial difficulties and most importantly the colour of his skin. He's 20 years younger than his nearest Democratic rival and is a graduate of Harvard Law School. The man gives an amazing speech.
He will make an amazing president. Just not yet.
If Obama would accept the Vice President under Hillary Clinton (who has a wealth of foreign policy experience) it will remove all political taboos in the country. There will no longer be old, white, men running the country. With Hillary improving America's relations overseas and Obama taking care of the domestic front i'm sure that over the next 16 years of Democratic rule in the White House (8 for Hillary, 8 for Obama) i'm sure that America will be improved.
However, if Obama were to win presidency then i'm sure that he would surround himself with the best and the brightest of all the administration, including Hillary. I'm sure she'd make an amazing Secretary of State :)
He's just won the Iowa caucus and is giving a rousing speech thanking the people for having faith in him.
Here is a charismatic young man who has overcome the adversity of youth, financial difficulties and most importantly the colour of his skin. He's 20 years younger than his nearest Democratic rival and is a graduate of Harvard Law School. The man gives an amazing speech.
He will make an amazing president. Just not yet.
If Obama would accept the Vice President under Hillary Clinton (who has a wealth of foreign policy experience) it will remove all political taboos in the country. There will no longer be old, white, men running the country. With Hillary improving America's relations overseas and Obama taking care of the domestic front i'm sure that over the next 16 years of Democratic rule in the White House (8 for Hillary, 8 for Obama) i'm sure that America will be improved.
However, if Obama were to win presidency then i'm sure that he would surround himself with the best and the brightest of all the administration, including Hillary. I'm sure she'd make an amazing Secretary of State :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
