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

[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.