View RSS Feed

title

And they're off...

Rate this Entry
I love electoral campaigns, especially when there is someone I can root for and against. The campaigns in the USA are of special interest to me because there is so much at stake there. I get involved not exclusively on the ground of the issues but equally or even more so, in terms of the intuitions and visceral reactions I have about the respective candidates.

I invite you to do one or both of the following: a) Make your predictions as to who will win the nomination in either party, and b) say who you like, dislike - and why.

It's up to you whether you state whatever biases you might have. I am an inactive, largely pessimistic socialist. I consider that the era of macro-politics is virtually over and that the best we or I at any rate can practice is micro-politics. I contribute to Oxfam and Amnesty and try always to treat people as I would hope that a truly humane government might treat the electorate as a whole.

If there is any interest in this blog, I will post my favourites in the two campaigns, who I think will win, etc.

Power to the people!
Categories

Comments

  1. motherhubbard's Avatar
    I can't believe it! Jerry has a blog. I don't know who I like and I don't know who will win. But I am interested is seeing what everyone else thinks. I think it would be very interesting to see how people from other countries view our ellections. I'll compose something and post it, but it may take me a while to get things down to a few short lines.
  2. Niamh's Avatar
    I know! I suggested a blog to him months ago and he said nah!
  3. PrinceMyshkin's Avatar
    One of my impressions is that it is such an interesting, rich field - at least among the Democrats. An interesting contrast to me was that between the last debates among the Democrats and the Republicans, in which the Democrats were so relaxed and affable (maybe because they know they have it in the bag) and the Republicans put out almost nothing but empty, vague mother-and-apple-pie cliches, except for the exceptionally petty, mean-spirited, juvenile pissing contest between Giuliani and Romney over which one had been softer on those "aliens."
  4. B-Mental's Avatar
    Hey Prince, welcome to the blogs, sorry, but I'm going lay off any political commentary...I don't want to be president...I want to rule the universe HAHAHAHAHA....thats a joke folks. Later B
  5. motherhubbard's Avatar
    It is interesting to see the difference in facial expressions, posture and general air of the two parties. I'm not sure how much integrity the vote still has, so I don't want to say that anyone has it in the bag. There was an interesting program about the vote on NOW (a PBS program recently). Here is the web site http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/348/index.html
  6. kiz_paws's Avatar
    Welcome to the land of the LitNet blogs, PrinceM! I won't even begin on politickin' comments, but wanted to be sure that you got a welcome. See you, Kiz
  7. PrinceMyshkin's Avatar
    Just saw Romney being interviewed on "Meet the Press" where Russert asked him to explain or defend his statement "There can be no freedom without religion and no religon without freedom" which seems to me to be the sort of nice-sounding statement which assumes that his liteers are a lot of bobble-heads who will just reflexly go Yah! no freedom without religion and no religon without freedom - but what the hell does it really mean?

    I would prefer to believe that there can be no freedom when one holds to a fixed, inflexible religious or ideological point of view, and no religon without genuine respect for the mystery of existence.

    Apply the would you buy a used-car from this man test to Romney, and what do you get? Me, it's a quick instinct to clap my hand over my wallet pocket and keep it tightly there!
  8. Virgil's Avatar
    I don't talk politics on lit net. So I'm not going to discuss this with any reply. But since I have some passing knowledge on the political scene in the US, I'll throw in my predictions.

    First of all let me preface this with the fact that historically both parties flirt with a shiny new upstart, but ultimately settle on the experienced. For instance Kerry over Dean in 2004, Mondale over Hart in 1984. So on the Democratic side you would expect Hillary over Obama, and I think that will prevail. However, the fact that Hillary has experience is a fiction. Being married to someone is not eperience. At the bottom of it all she is still only a one term Senator. It could be that her campaign is built on a house of cards, ready to crumble. But Obama doesn't even have a half a term. I think in the end Hillary has the institutional support from her husband's past and she will hold on.

    Ths doesn't fit in one comment entry, so I'll break it up into two.
  9. Virgil's Avatar
    I find the Republican side much more interesting. Five candidates all have roughly an equal chance. Republicans typically pick on leadership skills. McCain could have easily had this nomination if he had not crossed the party on several key issues in the past eight years, so that now he's out of step with the party on a number of key issues. Thompson is the most in step with the Conservative base, but he just lacks leadership qualities. Huckabee, other than being religious, isn't much of a Republican, and despite his sudden rise, he won't hold on. Guilliani has the most leadership skills of all, and a real record of accomplishment as Mayor of NYC. He turned the city around from a crumbling crime infested hole to the best city in the country. And even before that he as District Attorney was probably most repsonsible for crushing the mafia to the levels it is today. His problem is his soap opera personal life (three marriages and estranged children) that doesn't endear him to religious Republicans. But he is a leader in spades. Romney seems to have the best balance, religious with a solid family life and a successful business man and Governor of a state (Mass) not inclined to supporting Republicans. By all acounts he did a fine job there. So I would say in the end it's between Guilliani and Romney, and I give the edge to Guilliani.

    In the general election, a lot depends on how the war in Iraq continues. If war continues to go well, I think the Democrats, whoever it is, have a real problem. They will be seen as quiters for wanting to back out when victory was possible. If the war returns to a chaotic mess, then the country will want a change and probaby go Democratic. I say probably because I'm still not sure. Will the country elect Obama with three only years of experience as Senator? Will the country elect Hillary who has the highest unlikability numbers ever? And is the country ready for Bill Clinton (who despite what the die hards say never got over 50% of the vote in either of his elections) again? And we've never really had a co-President before, so how would that work? So here's my prediction: if the war continues well, Gulliani will easily defeat Hillary; if it's not going well, Gulliani squeeks by Hillary.
  10. Sweets America's Avatar
    Hey baby, that is so strange to see that you have a blog!
    Erm, you do know, I guess, what I have to say on politics, eh?
  11. PrinceMyshkin's Avatar
    Responding to Virgil's 8 & 9, where I disagree with practically everything he says, including your use of "the" and "a," Virge, I wanted to come at this from the point of view of which of these 18 (?) candidates do you feel the most empathy with, trust most as individuals you could imagine having an honest, passionate but open-minded chat with - about politics, the steroid scandal, poetry, your love life...

    To begin with
    I find the Republican side much more interesting.
    but from the pointof view I propose above, I can hardly imagine a less promising set of 7 or 8 individuals...
    McCain could have easily had this nomination if he had not crossed the party on several key issues in the past eight years, so that now he's out of step with the party on a number of key issues.
    For which, of course, per my criteria, he stands out as just about the only one who has deep-seated convictions or character formed by experience of life (i.e., something more or other than politics). He'd be interesting to hang around with and I would know he believed what he said even if I disagreed with it - as of course I do re the war for control of Iraqi oil.

    Thompson is the most in step with the Conservative base, but he just lacks leadership qualities.
    I've never felt with Thompson that I've glimpsed what lies behind the facade, the gravitas of his great sonorous voice...

    Huckabee, other than being religious, isn't much of a Republican, and despite his sudden rise, he won't hold on.
    On the other hand, to my way of thinking, he was the most likeable as a person, until he made that disineguous rhetorical question re Mormons, as to whether they believed that Christ and the devil were brothers!

    Guilliani has the most leadership skills of all, and a real record of accomplishment as Mayor of NYC.
    Indeed, and alienated how many portions of the populace by his manner of doing so. After his attack on Romney for running a "sanctuary mansion" during one of the debates, he turned, for me, from being a smiling attack dog into a yappie Yorkie, the kind who might just nip you to death.

    Romney seems to have the best balance, religious with a solid family life and a successful business man...
    Too smooth, by far, for my liking! Has the knack of appearing to agree with both sides on any question, with a third side thrown in in case there is one.

    In the general election, a lot depends on how the war in Iraq continues.
    And some, surely, depends on how well the Dems can continue to remind the voters of the mortgage calamity, the doubling or so of the national debt, the erasure of the CIA tapes, the multitude of Republican officials already in jail for one act of corruption or another.
  12. Virgil's Avatar
    Like I said I'm not discussing politics or responding to my comments. Thise were my honest opinions. If you really believe you can have an honest conversation (on the record) with any politician (running for office that is competive of course) you have an incredible idealism. Ask the Clintons.