Hillary Clinton

From a purely tactical point of view, surely the popular vote is less important than how either candidate would fare in the electoral college come the real election?

and since Obama did not even stand in Michigan, Clinton's claim tothe popular votes doesn't actually look that solid.

I haven't read the entire thread, so maybe it's been mentioned already...

When lefties insult Bush, it's usually about his incompetence and stupidity. (Okay, okay, no one could look at him and doubt Darwinism)
Have you ever noticed that when the wingnuts insult Hillary, it's usually about her body or her sexuality? She arouses them so!

And polls consistently show Clinton outperforming Obama versus McCain. As I have always said though, I think that both Clinton and Obama would/will ultimately lose, however the former would not get blown out, whereas the latter surely would.


Michigan is demographically the kind of state which Clinton would take anyway. The "uncommitted" results in MI is indicative of what Obama would have scored.

Why you think that JW?
I can think of a number of possible, plausable answers but I'm interested in hearing your opinion.

I am fairly certain that if the Democrats had the same winner-take-all approach to each state's delegates that the Republicans did, HRC would have won the nomination by now. Of course, Obama may have campaigned somewhat differently had that been the case. At any rate, if we assign each state's electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in that state (ignoring Michigan since Obama was not on the ballot there) by my count HRC would have "won" 286 electoral votes and Obama 229, with South Dakota and Montana (with three electoral votes each) still to vote.

As for scenarios of either HRC or Obama as the Democratic nominee in November, in what are known as "swing states", i.e., ones that could go for either Democrats or Republicans, it is likely that HRC would fare better in FL (27 electoral votes) OH (20 electoral votes) PA (21 electoral votes) NJ (15) TN (11) KY (7) AR (6) WV (5) and NH (4). Obama likely does better in CO (9) VA (13) MO (11) OR (7) IA (7) and MT (3). It is hard to tell about MI, MN, or NV.

This analysis would seem to favor HRC. I am pretty sure eurovol thinks Obama has a chance at winning other Southern states than those mentioned here, but I think that is unlikely, especially given that it is now becoming clear just how leftist he is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Electoral_map.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2008_De...opular_Vote.png

I'm sure Eurovol would be optimistic about how Obama would do in the south.

But in your opinion Conq. would Obama lose in the south becuase he is a "leftist" (sic) or becasue he is black?

are you sure? while there are few that suggest Clinton would be stronger there are even more that suggest Obama would be stronger. This, this and this as well as the other polls listed here paint a rather different picture from the one you seem so sure of.


probably correct but the contest was never held so it is speculation that there would have been no support. And on a knife edge with similar proportions to Ohio or Indiana, Obama if he had stood would have picked up delegates if the contest had been allowed.

Now, seeing as both Florida and Michigan had depressed polls because the results were to be disallowed surely the fairest thing would be to rerun the two contests NOW. I wonder whether Clinton would do quite that well in Florida at this late stage or even maintain a large lead in Michigan.

Democrats can win in the South if they run as (at least) moderate conservatives, but Obama cannot credibly do that even if so inclined.

As for his race, in the South it both helps and hurts Obama- he would gain more African-American votes but would probably do worse than a white Democrat would among Caucasian voters. Problem is, even if it is a wash or Obama benefits somewhat (as I would expect) he still loses everywhere in the South except perhaps VA. Because he seems to do poorly among Hispanic and Jewish voters, FL is probably out of the question for him.

BTW, I define the South as the 11 former Confederate states.

Obama would win Michigan and Hillary would probably still win Florida, but not by as much. The depressed vote was a major problem


No they haven't. The polls have consistently shown Obama doing better than Clinton until Clinton's dirty attacks post Wisconsin, but that lasted only a few weeks and the polls are now back to where they were prior to that.

I have already posted the most comprehensive state by state poll to date on the matchups and Obama was the clear winner. The next poll that counts will be post Clinton dropping out and the electorate coalescing around Obama. That is already happening in California where a recent poll shows that a lot of voters are pissed at Clinton and her antics.

I submit that the biggest contributors to the quite substantial leftward shift in contemporary American politics are the policies of Dick Cheney and his little dog, Shrub. Without their bad faith, favoritism, corruption and incompetence, I don't think Obama could possibly have energized so many hundreds of thousands of previously apathetic citizens. I further submit that the more people understand Obama's goals and ideas, the less the Right can rely on fear and hate to sway elections in their favor. And if the attempts by the Right to disenfranchise poor voters are thwarted, which I believe they will be, I don't think McCain has much chance at all to win, whether it be against Obama or Clinton.

bookmanjb, much of (if not most of )your "reasoning" doesn't appeal to the average person in America. At any rate, Obama has been barely able to win just over half of the votes in the Democratic primaries despite facing a flawed opponent, which suggests that there are serious doubts about him. It's time for Democrats to realize that they can win with centrist candidates in pretty much any presidential election but if they insist on running liberals all of the time, they will win only once a generation. If Evan Bayh, Bill Richardson, or Ben Nelson had been the Democratic nominee, the Democrats would have been looking at a landslide win. Of course, it's easier for the American far left to tell themselves it's "voter suppression" when they lose rather than to deal with the truth that they and their politicians are too far out of the mainstream of American politics.

EDIT: The Rasmussen presidential polls are always quite interesting:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...l_tracking_poll

Here is the post on the SurveyUSA poll. This poll has been the most accurate this entire polling season.

and before anyone points out that poll analysis is from March, see my above post that it is born out by recent polls in May and April

Your opinion and not that of the country. Polls consistently show that America is far more left than people perceive. These polls are done on individual issues rather than the biased bull from the right.

Go ahead and post them eurovol. I posted one in the past few days which showed a lack of interest in big goverment. At any rate, poll results can be greatly affected by the way a question is worded, among other things.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...ica_s_best_days

The government has grown at unprecedented levels under the current administration. The "democrats represent big government" argument is a hollow republican sound byte.

Why does a disinclination to "big government" equal an America that has not moved to the left?
The (attempted) attacks on civil liberties that have been carried out by governments (inclusing the USA, Germany) stink of big government but certainly aren't coming from "the left".

Whether or not my opinion appeals to 'the average person" is, of course, a non sequitur in the context of my point and this thread. Focus, Conq!

I think of all the rightwingers who post here, none has a more theoretical and less real-world Weltanschauung than you, with your numbing reliance on statistics and ideology and talking points. For you, of all people, to speak as though you have insight into "the average person in America" is just gut-bustingly funny.

Most Republican crap has been hollow soundbites since Reagan.

Doubled the deficit: Reagan, Bush I, Bush II
Reduced it: Clinton

Since 1960, the stock market has done better with a Dem in the White House.

Republicans have always cost us more money one way or the other.

I am busting a gut right now.

careful eurovol, he'll call you a 'leftist' in that man of the people, average american way of his

Translation: of all the people who post here that disagree wiith bookmanjb, I am the one he personally dislikes the most. Just stay behind those used bookstacks of yours.


Since the President does not have the power of the purse, it seems a bit ridiculous to completely ignore Congress when looking at the things eurovol does here.

The Democrats controlled the House of Representatives from 1981-1993 (Reagan and Bush 41) and the Senate from 1987-1993 (half of the time those two were President).

During Clinton's presidency, the Republicans controlled Congress from 1995-2001 (3/4 of the time).

Presidents don't write tax legislation and they don't debate and pass a federal budget. When looking at fiscal matters, the primary responsibility rests with Congress.

As for US stock markets' performance since 1960, I don't know whether eurovol is accurate or what benchmark index was used to draw the conclusion he did, but once again, we cannot ignore Congress when looking at something like that.

The Republicans controlled Congress during the '90s bull market, whereas Democrats did during the bear markets of the late 1960s and 1970s, and that of 1990.

The point should be that both parties are prone to big government.

but the actions of the president including legislation and military adventures have cost implications and he can veto much of the legislative agenda of a hostile Congress . . .

or are you genuinely going to imply that economically the POTUS is an inconsequential character?

But surely it was the president who decided to put a LOT of money into the black hole that is Iraq for example?

I am saying the POTUS is considerably less consequential than Congress is, and in most cases only a relatively small portion of economic performance can be lain at their feet. Why is it merely taken as an article of faith that the POTUS is completely or largely responsible for the private economy?

MT, the costs of war were a prime reason why I opposed taking action in Iraq in 2003; however, can you tell me how much has been spent there since 1990?

I doubt that most people realize that most of US government spending in any given year is mandated by previous acts of Congress and is unavoidable, e.g., entitlements.

because executive heads of state the world over in free economies have a substantial impact on business confidence even when they are not responsible for the direct legislation. That is certainly true in Europe and quite obviously true in the USA.

And as MT points out, the military adventures of the present president have all had major cost and confidence implications.

BTC, how do you quantify what you just mentioned?

i don't think you can quantify it really. But it has certainly happened in both France and the UK recently: Business confidence in the UK was boyant under Blair but has collapsed now that Brown, the prime architect of Blair's economic policy, took over. The other way round in France where depressed business confidence under Chirac's lackluster dernier days gave way to Sarkozi driven business optimism. I would be genuinely surprised if the leader of the free world were imasculated by comparison.

Exactly. So republicans should probably stop the brainwashing.

So if they're both prone to big government, how does the article about US citizens not wanting big government mean the democrats are at a disadvantage?

Wrong AGAIN! Not only do you laughably attempt to speak for "the average person in America" but, with no proof whatsoever (Conq, where are your stats???), you presume to assume that you know not only whom I dislike but whom I dislike the MOST! Sorry, buddy. It's true, I pity you (the number and length of your posts bespeak a lonely existence ), but I'm afraid I don't dislike you. Sorry.

bohemka, see why I posted the link to the results of that poll- it was in rebuttal to the above claim by eurovol. It means the Democrats are at a disadvantage to the extent that they are perceived to be more prone to big government within the scope of the size of government being an issue in elections. The only time in recent memory the US Congress made a serious attempt to limit the size of government was the Republican-controlled Congress in 1995-98.


Problem is, BTC, you haven't controlled for other factors that do affect business confidence, and to a much greater extent, yet you seem to claim that the identity of the top political leader is the deciding factor in business confidence, which I find particularly specious in the case of the UK given the generally positive public perception of Brown's performance at the Exchequer.

I am not saying that there is no effect whatsoever, but rather that it is generally insignificant (there will always be exceptions, e.g., Reagan's tax cuts).

bookmanjb- it seems you have drawn an inference a bit too far. Sometimes a leftist posts something that is clearly out of the US mainstream, and in those cases one can confidently state that.

As has been pointed out, the population's dislike of "big government" and thus a dislike of the US Democrats as "everyone knows" they are the party of "big government" is a partisan argument anyway.

MT, it's well known that I am critical of both parties for their overspending. Parse my words a bit more carefully if need be.

I never said it was anything like the 'deciding factor' but it IS quite obviously A factor. And Brown, he was indeed perceived as a good chancellor. But that is emphatically in the past tense. He is regarded as a liability as a national leader which has been hammered home again and again ever since he wobbled over the election date in the autumn and now everything he does seems to create a new disaster for the government in public perception as exemplified by the recent council elections and now the Crewe and Nantwich byelection where a safe Labour seat was captured by the Tories with an eye-watering 17.2% swing. The reality is that Brown is not actually as bad as his detractors allege - but he has lost the confidence of the British people and British business in a way that never happened under Blair even at his most popular.


if it were insignificant why would business across the USA put so much store in funding the presidential campaigns? Surely they aren't doing that just because they are spirited believers in the value of properly funded democracy?

Wouldn't have been a problem for Charles Kennedy!

BTC, business likes to back a winner, and it also usually likes to hedge its bets. In the case of the US, businesses are buying favorable regulatory and tax treatment and favorable awards of government contracts- in a word, they are buying influence rather than being starry-eyed idealists.

EDIT: As for Brown, I would not be surprised if his downward trajectory in popularity correlates in timing to the development of issues in financial markets that really began to come to the fore last summer. Especially given the prominence of the UK's finance industries.

and you think that the regulatory environment and the awarding of government contracts are of limited economic impact? Curious.


actually, he weathered that quite well and led the Tories in the polls at that time. It was only in the lead up to he conference season where he fomented fbrid rumours about a snap election before very publicly bottling it that his support collapsed. Since then, Northern Rock, the 10p tax debacle and many many other things mean that the government faces the very real prospect of being beaten into 3rd place for the first time in almost a century.

The awarding of government contracts is of very limited economic impact in the macroeconomy. As for regulation, that depends on the regulation, but generally, it has only a limited impact on the overall economy, although perhaps not within an industry. What's the macroeconomic impact of Company B grabbing some market share from Company A as a result of regulatory changes or a government contract? Usually negligible, if there is any at all. Private economic decisions, based upon things like expected future income, are far more significant to an economy.

With somewhat 50% of UK GDP passing through the hands of government I'd say it was mightily important how contracts are doled out.

And particuarly in certain sectors.
On a level playing field, if Lockheed can't convince Uncle Sam that their products offer more dead Ay-rabs per greenback than say BAe then they aren't going to be in business very long.

First, my comments were made within a US context. Second, how much of the UK budget is discretionary? Only 38.2% of the US federal budget was discretionary in FY 2007, and this was only 7.7% of US GDP.

Stuff like benefits that as you correctly point out are generally fixed in law.

But when various sections of government are obliged to make X ammount of investment, it is still discretionary where the contract goes.

Even IF the ammount of variable business that various sections of goverment have discretion on were so small then it is still of significance becasue it is generally large, prestigious projects that as we have seen over the decades have a HUGE potential for bumping up the price and profit.

Whether one company or another gets contract is normally of no economic impact- only if there is discretionary spending that would not have otherwise occurred is there usually any economic impact. Given the role of Congress in fiscal policy and government agencies in the budgetary and contract bidding processes, that spending cannot be tied to a President in most cases.

The government is committed to spend $100 million on a new road.
That is fixed.

Company A gave generously to the winning parties campaign.
Company B didn't.

Of course it is in practice more complicated than that.

The $100 million gets spent on the new road so the ammount of money movig is the same.
But you will get a less road built for $100 I'd wager.

Of course there are checks and balances in government and I think the US polity is pretty good on that.
But the same principle applies to their award of contract too - even if through arm's length tendering.

how about this: POTUS enacts a regulation that says all government contracts and supplies must be sourced from within the USA rather than outsourced to neighbouring countries or further afield.

Surely something like that would have an economic impact?

And what about POTUS illegally carrying out regime change in a foreign country and ensuring that all contracts for the reconstruction go to US companies?

Maybe. It depends, of course on a lot of things. Neither is/was wholly possible, anyhow. Can you itemize the costs and benefits of each? I think you'd be disappointed as to the overall economic impact.

BTW, only Congress could mandate the first scenario, and they would have to approve the second, even if it originated with the executive branch (keep in mind that if something originates from the executibe nranch, that doesn't necessarily mean it came from the White House as all cabinet agencies are part of the executive branch).

Hey Conq. you heard of a Jewish guy called Pontius?

The only two Pontiuses I have ever heard of were Lucius Pontius Aquila and Pontius Pilate. AFAIK, neither was Jewish. What's your point, MT?

I haven't read the thread other than the above two comments from MT and Conq, I wonder could this just be MT's point?

Pontificate (v.): To express opinions and judgments in a dogmatic way. (Definition from American Heritage Dictionary)

Assuming that's what MT meant, bear in mind that the statement I made which others have yet to debunk- that a US President has relatively little effect on the US economy- is accurate. If I had said "no effect" it would have been another story. And we never even got to mentioning the independent Federal Reserve's effect on the US economy...