Elections in America, still no winner

[matgb]

Odds are good if you're reading my journal you're at least paying a little bit of attention to the US election campaigns currently still going. Not least because at the end of it all, the person elected gets control of enough nukes to blow up the world a few times, which is rarely the case in a foreign election. It's, um, a bit of a mess, n'est ce pas?

For those that don't normally pay much attention, the US candidate selection Primary system is usually over by now. Usually. Normally both sides have got a clear front runner and the others pull out in the name of "party unity". This year? No chance, both parties remain too close to call. The drawback of personality politics and directly elected executives, you can't just elect a local MP, you need a candidate your party is happy with. And if you have a country the size of a continent and 6 times more people than Britain, that takes just a little bit more time. So, y'know, I thought it was time to

1. put on my psephologists head and
2. laugh at the stupidity of the BBC pundits who're getting so much wrong.

So, the US has two parties. The Republicans are best described as a bit like the Cornerstone Tory "faith flag and family" brigade, only with more money and less sense. The Democrats are best described as Ken Clarke style one-nation Tories, with a little bit of New Labour dressing. Note the lack of British-style liberalism (US liberalism is, for the most part, not liberalism by any sane definition of the word) and complete absence of any sort of real social democrat. In other words, two lots of corporatist, money grabbing loons, with one side slightly less bad. Of course, those generalisations are based around those they elect—A lot of Democrat activists are nearly as liberal as me, and there are some sane republicans, including a fair few non-loonies. So, well, let's start with the Republicans.

The Republican nomination race

At the start of the process, there were two hopefuls, two wannabes and a bunch of also-rans. One of the hopefuls (Giuliani) made a massive tactical blunder and dropped out early, which is good because he could've actually won the Presidency and we really wouldn't have wanted that. One of the also-rans is still in it, and even has a few delegates. But I've dismissed him before so let's not go there. A few days back, one of the two wannabes "suspended" his campaign, leaving a "clear front runner" if you believe the pundits. Here's Justin Webb from the Beeb:

only Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul and John McCain in the race - but only McCain with any hope of winning.

The 71-year-old has made it.

Bit of a problem Justin. As I predicted (in conversation and comments elsewhere but just trust me), McCain didn't do that well over the weekend. Sure, he won in Washington State, but only actually got 26%, the vote split weirdly. So how come the clear front runner just lost the weekend's votes? Simple. Have a look at the results from Super Tuesday. He won a lot of states, and thus a lot of delegates. But notice in only one of the states he won he got over 50% of the votes. In every other race, add up 2nd and 3rd and you beat McCain. Reason? A lot of Conservative Republicans really don't like McCain:

"We are going to work like mad to make sure this candidate does not get the presidency," said Bob Shoemaker, from Virginia.

He's just not conservative enough. Romney and Huckabee were splitting the Conservative vote, McCain was getting the support of independent voters and moderates, but the Conservatives aren't voting for him, aren't supporting him. Romney's pulled out, the vote isn't split, Huckabee is getting the victories. Classic Duverger's Law in action. The Beeb got it wrong. McCain may have nearly enough delegates to win, but add Romney's to Huck's and Huck keeps going, and he's in with a real chance.

Y'know what though? That's a Good Thing. Why? Huckabee's a loon. A creationist. He's popular in the lunatic fringe that's hijacked the once-great Republican party that elected Lincoln and abolished slavery. If he gets the nomination, then regardless of who gets the Democrat candidacy, the Republicans will almost certainly get wiped out, in a landslide that'll make Blair's '97 win look like a marginal victory. McCain? McCain could actually win. Especially against Clinton. So let's talk about the Democrats.

The Democrat nomination race

First, let's have a quick look at the votes coming in now from Maine:

Obama 1,873 59%
Clinton 1,300 41%
90% reporting

Looks like Obama's romping home there. Yesterday's results? Slate put it best:

Barack Obama won both Nebraska and Washington state—and by won, I mean made Hillary Clinton look like a second-tier candidate.

Clinton has been a marginal front runner, but Edwards withdrew, he was the anti-establishment name candidate. Apart from the protectionism, I liked him. Sure, I'd prefer Kucinich or Gravel but, y'know, no hopers both. Obama isn't as anti-establishment as the other three, but compared to a former First Lady? Obama has the momentum, and is holding it. It's possible, as insomnia observed last week that he's had it for a while:

absentee ballots are having a HUGE effect on this race

In California, Edwards was getting a chunk of votes. Way after he'd withdrawn his name. In votes cast by post ahead of polling day, Clinton won. But on the day itself? Obama, and then some. Obama is ahead in the polls and has closed the delegate gap. Hillary isn't going to withdraw until she's cleary lost. That'll take a while longer. She may even pull it back. I hope she doesn't. And if she does, then pray to whatever you believe in that Huckabee does beat McCain.

Why? Because McCain can beat Clinton, but he can't beat Obama. And I think the rest of the free world would like to see a genuine change in US politics.

Summary

In the Republican race, the Christian/conservative vote was split, giving McCain a false lead, now that Romney has withdrawn they might just select a lunatic with no chance, which would be good. In the Democratic race, it's too close to call, and while Hillary may be a perfectly good Democrat, she's not my type of democrat, and she could lose to the non-lunatic that the Republicans may still elect. Obama is ahead, and gaining momentum, but the situation could change. Can we hope it won't?

Yes, we can...

Comments

[miss-s-b.livejournal.com]

I think the rest of the free world would like to see a genuine change in US politics.

So do I; but if there's one thing guaranteed to make them vote for anyone but Obama, it's the whole rest of the world wants us to vote Obama because they think we need to change. We don't need to Gruddamn change. We're the best Gruddamn country in the world!!! etc. etc. ad nauseam

[matgb]

Possibly, possibly. But I think a lot of USians are now beginning to catch up with the idea it might be good, besides which, it's the Washington system that needs changing, and even more of them never liked that anyway.

We'll see.

[susanne-est-moi.livejournal.com]

This is simply not true.

If anything, we just don't give half a damn about what the rest of the world thinks.

*le shrug*

[rho]

Personally, I'm hoping that McCain beats Huckabee. While I generally agree with your analysis, there's just that small part in my head that's saying "but what if Huckabee wins?" and it scares the ever-living snot out of me. I know it's not likely, but I want him gone as soon as possible, so I can rest easier knowing that there is absolutely no chance at all.

[mapp.livejournal.com]

I agree; I can't see how Huckabee beating McCain would be a good thing. Just because we see him as a lunatic with no chance doesn't mean that he's not going to get elected President at the end of the day.

After all, how many Democrats or Republicans are actually going to vote for somebody of the other party?

[matgb]

I'd rather see Huck as candidate than have him as VP nominee. McCain is too close to death.

Also? Party lines are a lot more blurred in the US, and independents/non-declared/never-before-voted make up a massive chunk, and they'll all turn out to stop the embarrassing creationist, he's too far off the bell curve.

[mapp.livejournal.com]

The other question is - how embarrassing to the American public is a creationist? Although I'll take this with a pinch of salt, I would say that being a creationist isn't actually going to lose you that many votes that you wouldn't have already lost anyway by dint of being a Republican.

And doesn't the current President of the USA wear his religion on his sleeve?

[matgb]

The what if is a scary one, but it'll take a massively weird combination to see Huckabee do anything other than bomb against Obama, and he won't do much better against Clinton.

From an analytical, psephology/political science perspective, the odds of Huckabee winning are miniscule. Of course, minimal odds doesn't mean no odds, but I'd be reasonably confident (as in, I'd put money on it, which I rarely do) that it couldn't happen.

[susanne-est-moi.livejournal.com]

Huckabee won't win. Not overall. Not a chance. Not even a little one.

[tyrell.livejournal.com]

In other words, two lots of corporatist, money grabbing loons, with one side slightly less bad.

Yes.

Obama may not have it all sewn up yet. Today's Indy has a worrying piece - hispanics and old people vote for Clinton, and there's more of them in the next few states than black and young people. Absolutely appalling that it comes down to this, but the numbers seem pretty clear.

My brother made a transcript of the brilliant vid by Lawrence Lessig showing why Obama can make the hard decisions. He's the only choice now.

[matgb]

The identity voting thing really does bother me a fair bit, but it's not clear cut. Different states may have similar demographics but that doesn't mean they vote the same way—look at Maine compared to New Hampshire for example. Texas will probably tell us a lot, but I think Barack has a good chance there.

Will look at the video later. Danke.

[davegodfrey.livejournal.com]

Obama's parents are both atheist/agnostic, and while he isn't, he has said that:

"Because I do not believe religious people have a monopoly on morality I would rather have someone who is grounded on morality and ethics and is also secular, affirm their morality, ethics and values without pretending they are something they are not."

I don't even want to repeat the dross Huckabee comes up with in comparison. Maybe we're seeing the first stirrings of a removal of religion from its prominent place in American politics?

[innerbrat]

Obama has also given speeches that strongly imply he believes morality= religion.

[blue-condition.livejournal.com]

I would guess those speeches are made in the Bible Belt and the rational speeches are made in civilised states!

[innerbrat]

So when a candidate contradicts himself, when are we supposed to take him seriously?

[matgb]

Speeches that strongly imply but don't actually clearly say are, unfortunately, a necessary part of electoral strategy in a first past the post system—if your audience believes something to be 100% true, then you can't tell them they're wrong, you have to try to avoid the issue.

Bloody stupid system.

Doesn't absolve it, but regardless, to win over there you need to give a lot of ground to regular churchgoers. As long as you don't promise to do stuff to one group and promise to never do it to another (like Hillary did) then you're covered, don't like it but that's the system.

[davegodfrey.livejournal.com]

There's a bit of a ding-dong over on Pharyngula about this, and he concluded that speech with pro-religion remarks but at least its better than Bush Snr's "I don't think atheists should be considered citizens" crap.

[matgb]

I hope we can at least remove the extremist elements (hence why I'd like to see Huck get trounced). But Obama is really playing up his personal faith, he needs to to get the undecideds and centrists.

So it's not gone, just hopefully less extreme.

[davegodfrey.livejournal.com]

Given that in the US you won't find a local government candidate standing up and saying that he's an atheist I'll take whatever I can get.

[innerbrat]

Huckabee's a loon. A creationist. He's popular in the lunatic fringe that's hijacked the once-great Republican party that elected Lincoln and abolished slavery. If he gets the nomination, then regardless of who gets the Democrat candidacy, the Republicans will almost certainly get wiped out, in a landslide that'll make Blair's '97 win look like a marginal victory.
You have more faith in the general USian electorate than I do.

[matgb]

I have a reasonable amount of faith in Downs. Slightly different perspective but Huckabee is too extreme and the centre ground wants change not another conservative loon (arguably they didn't realise he was a loon in '00 and were lied to in '04).

I might be wrong, but I really doubt it.

[susanne-est-moi.livejournal.com]

Mm, I'm glad there's at least one of you out there.

[mooism.livejournal.com]

Whoever wins the Dem nom will have to heal the party. Clinton has given up on black votes and is trying to use race as a wedge issue. Some of her supporters have been labelling a vote for any of her rivals as a sexist vote.

[matgb]

Aye, very scary that it's devolving to identity. Virginia, Maryland and DC tomorrow, but I suspect it'll be the early March stuff that settles it, if Obama takes Texas it's all over for her. Then the backbiting might be over with.

Would never have thought the Clintons would cry race, but I've seen the "anti-Hillary=sexist" a few times and it really annoys.

[susanne-est-moi.livejournal.com]

Yes yes yes OHIO!

*fingers crossed for her state*

I'm pretty sure they all hate Hillary with a passion, so there's hope!

[davidnm.livejournal.com]

What do you make of the suggestion that Huckabee might end up as McCain's VP candidate?

I only read about this possibility after my relatively-positive comments last week and, well, it's something that has me a bit worried now. Given that a) McCain seems the most likely Republican candidate to be able to win and b) he's over 70, one might almost suggest that the Vice-President is potentially as much of a problem.

[matgb]

McCain'll need a Huckabee like running mate to keep the base on board, but he'll be tempted if he gets to choose to go for a non-creationist (hopefully). I don't think he'll get to choose.

He also seems to be in bloody good health. Like I said, Obama should be McCain anyway, so we'll have to see, but I'd actually expect Romney for VP on a McCain ticket TBH.

[burkesworks.livejournal.com]

I'd actually expect Romney for VP on a McCain ticket

You sure? There's not a great deal of love lost between McCain's camp and Romney's. I'd expect him to pick Tim Pawlenty or someone.

The only way we might end up with a McCain/Romney ticket is if Huck hangs in there and forces a brokered convention at St. Paul.

[matgb]

If McCain has a choice, then yes. But if it goes to brokered, which it might, Romney'll have the balance of power and could decide electable McCain works better than dead loss Huckabee.

Romney isn't stupid, he knows Huckabee can't really win, he probably knows he can't really win, although I'm not sure his conscious was thinkng that way when he was running.

We'll see. Interesting times...

[davidnm.livejournal.com]

I just have this nightmare vision in my head of McCain taking Huckabee as his running mate; this gets the church-loon-vote on his side, and then the Dems either self-destruct at the last minute or there's a McCain-vs-Hillary race (which I don't think the outcome could be forecasted at all). So, then moderates feel 'safe' voting for McCain as Huckabee is running for the spare part, not the main job ... and President McCain has a stroke or something and next thing we know, Mr H has his finger on the nuclear button (in which case I'll be stocking up on canned food).

Of course, I am just being paranoid and perhaps worrying about it more then is justified. At least, I hope I am.

[0ct0pus.livejournal.com]

I worry about Huckabee in the same way I worried about Bush. Everyone thought, "nah... they couldn't possibly... I mean what an idiot".

If I have learnt anything about American politics it is that being an idiot is not a reason why people won't vote for you.

[matgb]

The real difference is Bush was Bush jnr, big money, and his religious lunacy wasn't apparent to all beforehand, yes, it was there, but not the extremist creationist tendency.

Idiot is one thing. "Bloke next door" is electable. Creationist that wants to change the constitution to assert the supremacy of the Bible? Not going to happen.

I hope.

[caramel-betty.livejournal.com]

Even if he wants to do it, I can't see 3/4 of the states ratifying it within whatever time limit is given. Mind, he could call a constitutional convention and see what other whackjob suggestions come out of that. (This is why, as far as I can tell, no-one has ever seriously considered calling a constitutional convention. The left wing fear that God will be mentioned, the right wing think that the words "liberal" and "socialized" will be in it. Or something.)

[matgb]

But a new Convention could just as easily be taken over by genuine decentralisers who want to remove provisions that are a bit dated (gun control, for example, could be argued as a states issue which could sort the whole issue out).

But yeah, no chance of winning, and even if pigs do start flying, zero chance of getting his programme through.

[caramel-betty.livejournal.com]

In any significant rewrite of the Constitution, I'd be more surprised by any decentralizing that came out of it. In a "Let's get a few hundred politicos in a room" rewrite, my gut reaction is that I'd expect it to become more centralist and less federal. Not necessarily more presidential, but more powers to some combination of Congress and the President.

I'd also worry about seeing the Supreme Court's supremacy challenged - Congress has repeatedly tried to pass unconstitutional legislation with a clause telling the Court to piss off, which the Supreme Court has said "Errr, no, actually..." to.

Preferably, anyone taking part in the Convention should be barred from standing for/being appointed to any of the offices mentioned it, including Congress, Potus, Veep, Supreme Court etc.

I have no actual back-up for this feeling other than gut instinct, and a hunch about snouts and troughs.

[matgb]

Aye. Now isn't really the time for one. Although it's possible after an Obama landslide it could happen.

Although I'd be less worried about a Convention being more power to the centre, it would depend strongly on how it was set up, delegates would come from states and thus might have a completely different view.

[freddiefraggles.livejournal.com]

"Yes, we can..."

Oh ho, I see what you did there...

You know as well as I do that I'm not particularly into following British politics, let alone American politics, but for crying out loud, if Hilary Clinton wins, I will go and live on the moon.

[matgb]

if Hilary Clinton wins, I will go and live on the moon

Heh, if we could do that, I'd be there already. But y'know, I don't think she'd be that bad. Bad, but not that bad. I'm not as convinced as tyrell that's she's evil. Just, y'know, a career politician with no background philosphy to back her up.

[caramel-betty.livejournal.com]

The commute from the moon would make seeing your fiancée difficult, surely?

[freddiefraggles.livejournal.com]

Well, for the both of us, yes.

I'm sure mapp and snapesbabe wouldn't mind coming along too. Shrubby would love it! :D

[matgb]

SB would definitely move with me, she'd probably want to make the move first...

[freddiefraggles.livejournal.com]

She's pretty evil, if you ask me. And I'm quite happy to admit that I have not based that on her manifesto.

[srk1.livejournal.com]

For a fundy, I don't mind Huckabee too much. He is relatively left-wing on some economic issues.

I want Obama to win because I want it to be written into the electoral history of the US that the Iraq war was a disaster. If we have a contest between two candidates who were among its most vocal supporters, the same mistake will be made again, at some point down the line. We need to show the neoconservative movement (and, fuck it while I'm being sectarian, the 'Decent Left' movement as well) that it was wrong and it lost, then we can move on.

Oh, and he's a mesmerising orator, which is more important than it ought to be, but is still important.