5 comments by 1 or more people

1. In 2000 I labeled McCain as being possibly the best president that America never had and, indeed, that was after a strong start against Bush though he faded as the primaries advanced. I wonder now if he is just too old to be any more than a one term wonder, in which case America will perhaps stagnate for some part of the next 4 years. But, being ex-military, I imagine that he would not go invading places in a hurry (old soldiers tend to remember who actually does the work in wars as opposed to the civilians) but, if he did, he’d take enough troops in at the outset thus avoiding the strategic overstretch the country has fallen into under Bush. He has been pilloried for continuing to support the Iraqi war but he is nothing if pragmatic: now the Army is in there it might as well finish the job properly and get it out at the earliest opportunity rather than the opportunistic politicking that has been the course adopted y other candidate.!

   08 Jan 2008, 09:45

2. Gareth Herbert

   Good blog and some interesting points. I don’t use the Warwick blogs much anymore (they rarely seem to produce interesting debate or any real genuine diversity of opinion). Anyway, this is what I wrote about the US elections on a different forum – you’ll have to take my word about Iowa! It’s quite long, but I’m going to post it so as to indulge my narcissism.

   What I thought before Iowa:

   Democrats:

   1. Barack Obama
   2. John Edwards
   3. Hilary Clinton

   Republicans:

   1. Mitt Romney
   2. Mike Huckabee.
   3. John McCain
   4. Fred Thompson

   I’m going to go with Romney over Huckabee for a couple of reasons, firstly the fact that Mitt presides over a very effective campaign team with over 100 paid campaign members on the ground in Iowa (compared with Huckabee’s shoestring campaign) I back them to “turn out the vote” a good deal better – something that I feel could prove telling in a Caucus, historically speaking, usually only meets with a turnout of around 20%.

   I’m very keen to know how the polling has been conducted this year in the state and whether it has targeted the general public at large or “likely voters”. If it is the former then I feel that Huckabee’s share of the vote might well be overstated – his rise has been fairly meteoric unlike the more sustained numbers Romney has attained and I wonder how committed such a following might well prove when it comes down to the crux.

   I wouldn’t worry about Huckabee, I think his chances of attaining the nomination are small, polls indicate that he’s behind Romney, McCain and Guiliani on the national level and he’ll need a phenomenal performance in Iowa to challenge that. I also don’t believe that the Republicans will be idiotic enough to elect a candidate who the three leading Democratic contenders would probably wipe the floor with merely because he appeals to the core values of the most conservative of their following.

   I don’t feel that the Republican field is at all weak, in fact I think it’s a good deal stronger than its Democrat opponents (barring Hilary, who I think will win the presidency in 2008). Also, I think you’re underestimating Thompson’s ability in the short term, he’s certainly not a serious challenger for Iowa, or the presidency, but his polling numbers are still solid enough and I can’t see either Guiliani (who hasn’t bothered with the state) or any of the joker candidates finishing ahead of him. I actually feel he might even push out McCain for 3rd spot given McCain’s stance against subsidies for the Iowa ethanol industry (like their sacred cow of elections) but the momentum is definitely with McCain.

   Ron Paul isn’t going to come 3rd in a month of Sundays, he gets more hype on this forum than he deserves because Roger the cabinboy is something of a mindless acolyte to his cause. If I am wrong and he does come in 3rd or even 4th for that matter I will eat my metaphorical hat. I think he will be a distant 6th behind Guiliani and the other four that I mentioned.

   American elections are infinitely more interesting than our own.

   08 Jan 2008, 18:41

3. Gareth Herbert

   What I thought before New Hampshire:

   A couple of points, firstly some people seem to be unaware that in terms of the national polls Rudy Guiliani is the Republican front runner. His election strategy is, and has always been, to wait until Florida before seriously contesting anywhere and then hoping that victory here will be enough to spur him onto a massive victory on February 5th, when 20 states hold their respective caucuses & primaries. You won’t hear much from him until Florida as his campaign has “gone dark”, I presume that they feel that the best way they can avoid getting hit by the media for poor showings in Iowa etc is to stay out of the spotlight.

   I feel that the smart money is with McCain, he’s polling well nationally, is looking very strong in New Hampshire and is running with a lot of momentum right now. I still wouldn’t discount Guiliani though, even if his campaign has become something of a wild card.

   08 Jan 2008, 18:42

4. Gareth Herbert

   There was a line from the final series of the West Wing that went something like; “people think elections are won by winning the argument over a question with two different answers, they aren’t, they’re about deciding what the question is in the first place”. In 2004 the question was “In a time of national crises, who would you rather have as your President; a strong and determined leader, or a flip-flopper with anti-war credentials over Vietnam”. A significant enough portion of the media and the public at large accepted this question (and the premises inherent within it) and so Kerry lost the election.

   In British politics, after Brown’s coronation he enjoyed something of a media lovefest and a boom in the polls whereas Cameron went through something of a bad patch. The question that shaped this turn of events; “Would you rather have a serious politician who trades in substance or a shallow pretender who deals mainly in style”. Fortunately for us all, the Labour government demonstrated enough incompetence over the coming months for us to dispel this absurdity but still – enough people accepted that this “question” and Brown’s numbers soared

   Hilary Clinton is in a lot of trouble right now. Obama is in total control of the campaign theme, so much so that candidates right across the board are all lining up to call themselves the change candidate. In an election where “change” looks likely to be the key issue, the young, charismatic, black Obama is always going to outstrip Clinton, with all her baggage and whose image is so closely tied to Le’ Ancien regime. She can question the “beef” behind Obama’s pretty speeches (more people ought to do so, rather than getting swept away in this tidal wave of baloney), she can assert “you campaign in poetry but govern in prose” and talk about her numerous reforms over the last 35 years but that won’t make the slightest bit of difference as people have already made up their mind as to what the candidates stand for.

   You win elections by shaping the central questions around which they are formed, not by answering them. Whether or not the premises within the question are true is irrelevant, all that matters is that enough people believe they are true and normally, the army of morons calling themselves pundits who swarm across US news channels are more than happy to oblige by endorsing existing stereotypes. Right now the question at the centre of this campaign is: “Would the American people like reform and change (Obama), or simply more of the same (Clinton)”. Although the question essentially contains misleading premises unless Clinton is able to fundamentally alter what the campaign is about she is going to lose, (as it looks like she will in New Hampshire today). Right now, it’s looking like the only thing that could possibly stop Obama’s tidal wave is Iran doing something stupid in the gulf, or possibly anarchy in Pakistan. Either way, Hilary is looking very weak right now.

   Predictions for New Hampshire:

   Dems:

   1. Obama
   2. Clinton
   3. Edwards

   Reps:

   1. McCain.
   2. Romney
   3. Huckabee

   08 Jan 2008, 18:42

5. Gareth Herbert

   P.S: Re the democrat vote in NH, I believe that although Obama will win the margin won’t be by as much as ten points. Hilary may well be beaten in New Hampshire but I think that she has enough of a core vote there to make this a little closer than Iowa. I don’t think Edwards will get 20% – more likely he will poll some in the low teens. I don’t think his brand of populism and cheese-charm will play anywhere near as well in New Hampshire as it did in Iowa.

   08 Jan 2008, 18:49

Trackbacks

Trackback URL: http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/richardwarburton/entry/new_hampshire/trackback/

1. I am not Nostradamus

   At the time of writing, I only have 80% reporting, so things might change slightly, I'll check it out tomorrow morning and update if I get any closer. In Iowa I was close with the democrats, and slightly further with the republicans, this time its t...

   True Contradictions - 09 Jan 2008, 04:37

2. Michigan

   There is a democratic Michigan primary but it doesn't count for any "delegates":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_primaries_2008#The_Michigan_primary Republicans I have to say that michigan is the cl...

   True Contradictions - 15 Jan 2008, 01:22