Will this be the foreign policy trump-card?
August 10th, 2008-
Is McCain’s plan for a ‘League of Democracies’ the answer?
On May Day of last year, John McCain addressed the Hoover Institution at Stanford University in California. As the Republican primary candidate with the most foreign policy experience, his remarks received a significant amount of attention.
The key idea in the speech was that, if elected President, McCain would call a summit of the Democratically-elected world leaders, and discuss with them how global problems might be solved. He described the idea as ‘a League of Democracies’. This was explicitly targetted at the less-Democratic regimes in Moscow and Beijing, and their ability to frustrate international intervention in certain crises by casting vetoes from their permanent seats on the UN Security Council.
McCain was not proposing to abolish the UN (though that would be a vote-winner in much of the US), but rather that where the UN failed to act, that a formal organisation comprising members of NATO, NAFTA, and other democracies would be able to respond with a degree of multilateral legitimacy.
What makes this speech interesting in the current climate is the following passage:
“A decade ago, the great Russian people had thrown off communist tyranny and seemed determined to build democracy and a free market and to join the West. Today, Russia looks more and more like some 19th-century autocracy, marked by diminishing political freedoms, shadowy intrigue, and mysterious assassinations. Beyond its borders Moscow has tried to expand its influence over its neighbors in Eastern, Central and even Western Europe. While the more democratic Russia of the 1990s sought to deepen its ties with Europe and America, today a more authoritarian Moscow manipulates Europe’s dependence on Russian oil and gas to compel silence and obedience, and to try to drive a wedge between Europe and the United States. The Russian government is even more brutal toward the young democracies on its periphery, threatening them with trade embargoes and worse if they move too close to the West. It supports separatist movements in Georgia and Moldova and openly intervened in Ukraine’s presidential elections.“
Barack Obama recently went on a whistlestop tour of Europe and the Middle East in an effort to sure up his foreign policy credentials defecit. It worked to a degree, and the US is (I believe) receptive to the idea of being loved and admired by Europe once again, but would prefer a less rigid means of conducting foreign policy. Multilateralism comes with its own problems, and I believe that the Democratic Party position of general support for the UN would come under extreme pressure if this plan becomes a centre-piece of the election.
There are two problems for Obama here. The first is that American psephological discourse (popularised by the ‘West Wing’) recognises ‘Mommy’ and ‘Daddy’ issues, and the trick is, not to suggest the best policy for each, but to tailor the election to one set or the other. ‘Mommy issues’ (being shorthand for Healthcare, Jobs, Environment, and Education) are traditionally the preserve of the Democratic Party; ‘Daddy issues’ (such as National Security, Defense Spending, Immigration, Foreign Policy) are traditionally better for Republicans. If, so popular wisdom goes, the 2008 election is all about Medicare and Social Security, Obama wins. If it is all about Iran and North Korea, expect to see President McCain sworn in next January.
The second problem is personal. The threat of Islamic terrorism is ‘new’ - in the public consciousness it began in September 2001. Iraq became a battlefield in the 1990s and Afghanistan only this century. Obama is comfortable with ‘new’. But another Cold War with Russia bring back memories of the twentieth century - Cuba, McCarthyism, the Space Race and Kennan’s Long Telegram. When the Republic of Georgia declared independence from the USSR (9th April 1991), Barack Obama was still in his twenties. Will Americans want a fresh new leader with a new approach, or with the Kremlin recovering its strength might Americans want a leader who pledges fidelity to all aspects of the legacy of the man who ‘won the Cold War’: Ronald Reagan?
I have been fairly outspoken as to how thouroughly clumsy, almost unprofessional, the McCain campaign has been since he won the Florida primary. And yet the slickest and best-funded campaign in electoral history, that of Barack Obama, is struggling to hold a lead outside the margin of error. If the election becomes about ‘Daddy’ issues, things will only get more uncomfortable for the Democrats. The bigger the South Ossetia conflict becomes, the easier it becomes to imagine John McCain as the next President of the United States.
Morus
MessageSpace Advertising
How about why is it that a multi term senator and military hero with a maverick reputation and more foreign policy experience than Tallyrand is losing to the black junior senator from Illinois with the funny name ??
A League of Democracies? That’s most of OPEC excluded then - what will that do to the oil price?
1. ‘W’
“The key idea in the speech was that, if elected President, McCain would call a summit of the Democratically-elected world leaders, and discuss with them how global problems might be solved. He described the idea as ‘a League of Democracies’. ”
Hold it, who is the supposed Messiah exactly?
A ‘League of Democracies’ is a wonderful idea and ultimately where the UN has consistently failed.
Next problem of course is deciding what constitutes a ‘genuine Democracy’ or more precisely, how much bending of the rules can be tolerated before one is deemed a banana republic?
On present form I’m not so sure we (UK) would be admitted.
“and openly intervened in Ukraine’s presidential elections.”
sounds like u think there is some scope for effectively intervening in the US election too..
Morus, The Russian bombing near Tblisi airport is repotedly a military aircraft factory no?
It is an interesting idea. The problem is the one that Obama realises - however problematic Russia is being, we still need Moscow’s help to deal with the biggest threat: tracking down and reclaiming nuclear materials. John McCain has also had to water down his league of democracies idea. The hard neocons don’t like the multilateral edge to it, and the libertarians and the Christian Right are both very isolationist by instinct (preferring the “shining city on the hill” America). But yes, this should favour McCain. Obama needs to show that he is tough and firm to the American electorate, without unnecessarily waving a red flag to a bull (or bear, in this case).
Incidentally, I think Obama is someone who will prove surprisingly (to most observers) hawkish on foreign affairs. He appears to believe in conciliatory rhetoric, but tough action. I expect this to lose him the hard liberal left when he comes into office, while gaining much of the centre-right.
The UN will be very upset.
Mind you, the UN is fundamentally not a democratic institution - for most of it’s life democracy has been the choice of the minority of member states.
My favourite is the UN Decolonisation lot keep on telling the UK to leave the Turks & Caicos - the fact that the people who actually live there want the current status is irrelevant….. same for the Falklands….
1. I’m sorry, but I really don’t buy that McCain has much foreign policy experience. He was in the armed forces, and on a couple of committees for armed forces affairs. That gives you a very narrow understanding of international affairs.
McCain is simply not presidential material and the voters know that is the case. roll on November!
‘The League of Democracies’ it sounds like a comic strip.
From their secret base deep below Washington DC, the League of Democracies are ready to spring into action whenever freedom is in danger.
See the film based on the world famous comic strip, starring lots of British actors playing the bad guys.
2. Yes, this is my perspective. I think the league of democracies is a fine idea, but its time simply has not come yet. I think we need to wait until about 65% of the world is democratic (or mostly democratic) first.
10. He doesnt really, not in real terms. And at least he’s interested and has been for some time. So in relation to your average US citizen?
He’s got plenty.
1 - I suppose its just a long time since we thought of it that way! It’s difficult to fathom quite how remarkable that is, but we’ve become used to it. 18 months into the campaign, they both look like they could be President - it should come down to campaigns from here on in, and I just don’t think there’s been a quality chasm between campaigns this big since 1972, or perhaps since 1964.
I do take your point, but this should now be a mismatch, and it isn’t.
Perhaps the US would like to join the Commonwealth?
7 - It seems so, which is a lot better than them bombing Tblisi airport, which is what the first reports were suggesting.
10 Socrates. I don’t buy it either but much of the electorate and media do.
15 Morus. I think the mismatch will begin after the first debate.
Completely OT, but anyone who’s ever been Rick-rolled will enjoy this…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65I0HNvTDH4&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/10/8252/83935/825/565654
12 — exactly. As stupid an idea as the movie parodied at the top.
“A league of democracies”
Oh really? I cant wait until Russia and Iran (both democracies) start lecturing the US on its actions from within this organisation…
This is obviously nothing more than an anti-UN dog whistle.
In terms of counterfactuals, I often wonder if Clinton (a draft dodger) would have been elected had the 1991 Soviet coup succeeded.
Russia and Iran (??) democracies? What planet are you on?
Afternoon all
I think at times we get too wrapped up in the concept that everybody else should be a democracy just like us. I’m profoundly uncomfortable with trying to impose our political system on anyone. As history has shown us (1918 is a good example or post-colonial Africa), simply setting up democratic institutions without the necessary socio-economic and cultural underpinning is a fultile gesture.
Authoritarian regimes often use the facade of democractic practice and it might be argued that in the US and to a certain extent the UK, the possession of power and influence is as often co-located with economic power as it was with popular legitimacy.
McCain’s idea is naive - is Singapore a democracy, or Cambodia or Malaysia or any other effectively one-party state which still holds regular elections and has a legislature ?
Brief thoughts on South Ossetia: it seems to me that either Russia provoked the Georgians into a clampdown on the South Ossetian separatists and they walked right into Moscow’s trap or the Georgians thought that with the Olympics going on, they could quickly crush the South Ossetians without Moscow noticing.
Either way, the Georgians spectacularly miscalculated the Russian response. It’s also fascinating to watch the Russian media view on all this - anyone with Sky go to Channel 512 and you’ll see a very different view of the conflict with words like “genocide” liberally (so to speak) being used.
It’ll be interesting to see if the weekend’s events impact the financial and oil markets tomorrow.
On a slightly unrelated topic, I’ve been thinking about the Cameron Coalition. If you want to read my full thoughts on how David Cameron has built this election-winning group of voters:
http://aloadofoldstodge.blogspot.com/2008/08/de-constructing-cameron-coalition.html
21. MBoy: Russia and Iran (both democracies)
Prrrrrrrrrfffffff!
If we define democracy to include Habeas Corpus, prohibitions on torture and the fettering of executive (and corporate) power under the rule of law then I’m not sure the US should qualify.
Latest Gallup Tracker :
McCain 43% .. Obama 46%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/109351/Gallup-Daily-Obama-46-McCain-43.aspx
The ‘League of Nations’ failed in the early part of the twentieth century, the ‘United Nations’ is not really that effective so what hope a ‘League of Democracies’ in the twenty-first century?
What happens to those nations that do not qualify?
“What happens to those nations that do not qualify?”
The League self-righteously invades them?
I think the US will define which “democracies” it wants.
As a working definition, I’d expect the EU countries, Switzerland, Norway, US, Canada, Mexico, Japan, Australia, NZ, South Africa, India, South Korea, Brazil, Argentina, Turkey, Israel.
28 - Maybe, they form a rival organisation and and train up to whup our ass. Let’s face it, Russia, China, the Middle East and so on all together could level much of the west.
Black/white, black/white, when will these people learn?
Russia is beyond the pale but Georgia isn’t far behind in any case, it’s just a ruse for politicians to play with the lives of ordinary people.
28/29 - I don’t think the plan would be to invade all the other countries, but the League would respond to crises like Darfur or East Timor as and when they arose.
It would be multilateral, but without the vetoes of Russia and China. It’s a fair charge - why is the UN the arbiter of International Conflict, when so few of its own members are legitimate? Why not have a UN-type organisation where all the members met a certain degree of legitimacy?
32. But the very formation of such an organisation is a clear sign of a military alliance against the other powerful countries: Russia, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc. The move would force them into each others arms and cause another cold war. We can always deal with Darfur and East Timor through the main democracies (Britain, France, Germany, USA, Japan) doing it outside the UN, along with anyone who wants to go along with us, as happened with the first Gulf War. The best way to cement the liberal democratic order is to secure all countries to it, regardless of their own internal “legitimacy”, NOT by forcing half the world to be outside that order.
“It would be multilateral”
‘America calling the shots’ =/= ‘multilateralism’
What if countries A, B and C are gung-ho about going into Darfur but country D isn’t — would it be compelled to provide support in any case?
O/T Apols -
Having considered it was safe to go significantly red with Betfair on the seemingly diminishing prospects of Brown quitting in Qtrs 3 or 4 2008, I have had something of a volte face today with the news of the rumoured Johnson & Cruddas assault on the leadership to be mounted within the next month and I’ve taken some insurance at 15.5/1 against the unlikely prospect of him (Brown) going in Qtr 3, which now looks impossible unless he were simply to quit without participating in any contest, staking somewhat more seriously at 3.2/1 against a Qtr 4 departure.
Much has been posted here about how difficult, logistically, it would be to remove Brown - but thinking about a possible two pronged attack against him, i.e. Miliband on the one hand and Johnson & Cruddas on the other, doubtless with Cabinet supporters for either side, it suddenly looks a whole lot easier in terms of him finally realising that his number was up.
Sounds like a stupid idea to me.
And I worry that it would go some way down the already rocky road of legitimising regime change in international law.
International peace and security is at stake once any nation thinks it can invade another to promote democracy. That was why Iraq was so misguided.
I know it’s probably the hat, but in the picture above, does anyone else think that John McCain bears more than a passing resemblance to the late great George Melly?
Obama slipping a further two points on the EC spreads and, in my opinion, representing better and better value every day! I’m not convinced that the overall poll leads are all that meaningful. Surely the key question is which states he’ll win, and this will determine the number of EC votes at the moment. I’m looking at something like 330 seats. You can currently buy him at 304…
16. ..and be rewarded with a nice cup of tea with the Head of the Commonwealth (if the W learns to curtsey properly).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1042392/Nobody-knows-curtsey-properly-says-Queens-granddaughter-Zara-Phillips.html
37 - Goodtime John?
“Barack Obama recently went on a whistlestop tour of Europe and the Middle East in an effort to sure up his foreign policy credentials defecit. It worked to a degree”
his poll ratings crashed after it.
41 - Untrue. I posted a few days ago to show how they had gone up.
As many posters have already pointed out, the “League of Democracies” is a nice idea in theory, but could be very dangerous in practice.
Basically, it would either be a charade or some kind of Super-NATO. Do we really want to officially split the world into “the League” and China + Russia + Middle East + Africa? Let’s not fool ourselves, they WILL stick together if they must.
I’m not sure how serious McCain is about this, but it’s dangerous. Potentially much more dangerous than the Iraq invasion.
42 - Here’s the figures.
All that negativity and and total focus on ripping Obama apart and McCain has hardly closed the gap.
“Obama leaves for Afghanistan at start of tour (July 19th) –
RCP average
Obama – 45.8%
McCain – 41.6%
Today –
RCP average
Obama – 46.9%
McCain – 43.3%”
O/T but would anyone agree that whilst Thatcher’s legacy may have been pushing Labour to the right, Blair’s will prove to be one of moving the Tories to the left?
Seriously, I think I could tolerate a Cameron government fairly easily.
It’s starting to get to the point where the only reason I want Labour to win (lol) is to wipe the smiles off some of the sad Tories faces on here.
UKpaul but you live deep inside the bubble where barack can do no wrong and Mccain no right.
Many commentators noted that after Obama’s foreign jaunt Mccain led for the first time since the nomination.
1. Jack w
I am still trying to work out if this attitude is something you truly believe, or it’s an act your character believes - for your grey hairs surely know better. Obama is woefully underperforming the generic Democratic advantage over the Republicans. Look at those huge numbers, compare and contrast with the MOE lead Obama has. the question is why he trails the ratings of his party so badly.
Mr. Potato Head with a Democrat label should be an easy ten points clear at this stage. It’s incredible that Obama is still pegged back to where McCain is in striking distance.
I still think Obama will probably win but I think it will be very close, and it should not be close. we can see how much better the democrats are doing than the GOP. Obama should deliver a landslide, which he’d get if he had anything like a straight party affiliation advantage, even if he himself brought nothing extra to the table.
44. That shows a narrowing of the gap. It’s also worth pointing out that gallup had the two candidates tied on 44 for two days in a row immediately after the trip whilst McCain had a one point lead on Rasmussen for two days. So the original point was valid - after his trip his ratings went down.
45. How can you wipe a smile off a sad face?
A league of democracies clearly excludes the EU.
OFF-topic, but Tom Knox is on his way to Thailand to rewrite the last quarter of THE GENESIS SECRET - and he’d like to put in a good word for Heathrow.
From alighting at the airport station, to sitting down to a glass of wine in the terminal - i.e. having gone through check-in, passport control, X rays, shoe scanners etc etc etc - took all of… 17 minutes.
That is seriously impressive. BAA have really smartened up their act. Indeed having been through about twenty airports in the last six months I can confidently say the Heathrow Experience (including the superfast train from Paddington) is now one of the most efficient and least disagreeable in the world.
Ryanair out of Stansted is less good.
….and some polls went up, that’s why an average is a better than cherry picking polls.
McCain has enthused his base (he has about a 6% lead in his party voting for him as opposed to Obama) but that base isn’t large enough. Democrat registration is up by 200,000 and GOP registration is down by over a million.
42. Ukpaul. Do you fancy a wager that McCain leads Obama on a Gallup Daily Tracker poll before the end of August 08? I say he does for an Evens bet up to £50.
43. But China and Russia both have democratic institutions, in the case of the former its often for unimportant local concerns, and for the latter, the russian people with deliberate intent, elect people who are well, like Putin.
50 - I would if you are talking about the RCP poll average, I would never bet on single polls because of the possibility of a rogue.
Having said that it’s a struggle this month, I’ve just renewed the mortgage and its gone through the roof. Bloody labour.
BTW someone still owes me from my bet that Obama would get the nomination….
49. The average shows a narrowing of the gap - this means the polls were, on average, worse for Obama. Your figures prove test’s point.
41 - I did ponder over that sentence, test!
It worked in that by visiting Iraq and Israel, and being welcomed by world leaders, it allayed concerns that he didn’t have a profile in foreign affairs.
His poll numbers dropped because he appeared presumtuous, so I still think the sentence is true - it worked to correct a latent(serious) fault, even if it opened up a (trivial) fault that came to realisation in his poll numbers.
52. Fair enough. Any other takers?
Nothing beats City Airport for speed of process.
51:A minimum standard has to include not just the theoretical possibility of booting the ruling rascals out, but actually successfully replacing them with an opposition within the last few years.
Russia: we sank a Georgian naval vessel…
According to FiveThirtyEight.com, McCains massive $6 million ad buy during the Olympics is apparently for this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3DxDBH9nn4
Now I’m obviously no objective observer, but I do feel McCain is really overplaying the “celebrity” attack. It may have a number of rather unfavourable connotations, but in the end I just don’t think it’s very strong. A “flip flopper”, coward and liar (as implied by Swiftboat Veterans for Truth) cannot be a good president, but a “celebrity”?
I would give the Obama campaign the definite advice not to run a spot centered on Obama during the Olympics. If they ran something pointing out McCain’s obsession with who is popular and who is not, saying that Obama does indeed inspire hope, but only because he offers real change [example here], the contrast would be rather striking.
57. That would rule out South Africa and Japan then?
24 Stodge. Thanks for the link. An interesting and well-argued article.
In some ways it mirrors my own journey from centre-liberal to liberal-conservative. Thanks for the link.
re 59 I agree with that. This latest McCain ad has nothing of the potency of the earlier couple. Then it was a novel idea that seemed to resonate. Now it just looks like old hat - nearly as old as the senile contender himself.
..now what was he saying about President Putin of Germany????
53 - Untrue. Test said that his polling had ‘crashed’. Improving is a very strange definition of ‘crashed’.
54 - Morus, his poll ratings went up. As per 538.com ” If you look at our tracking graph, you’ll see a slight downtick in Obama’s numbers that occurred between roughly mid-June and mid-July … before his trip abroad and before McCain’s attack ads started running. Since then, the trend has been essentially flat.”
62. Yes.
64 - Oh fair enough - I was just defending my carefully-constructed sentence by disconnecting Obama’s tour solving his FP problem from any impact that may have had on his poll numbers!
65 is for 61 (unless the numbers change again..)
58. True. But not quite the same choice of destinations.
What’s your least favourite airport? Antananarivo in Madagascar takes some beating for scuzziness. Charles de Gaulle is a mare. As for Luton. Ugh! And arriving at LAX is always chaotic.
BTW I’d just like Mike to know I too have a DONGLE now. In fact, I can go one better than him, I also have a SLINGBOX.
45. Yes, I’d completely agree with that. And I suspect Cameron’s legacy will be moving Labour more liberal.
60 - I don’t think the celebrity attack is a long-term plan - there will be a bit of distaste (politics of jealousy perhaps), but the ads aren’t aimed at the voters, they’re aimed at the Obama campaign.
If you are behind in cash, and your opponent is an attractive candidate who speaks well, you don’t want an ad war - you can’t afford it, and you won’t look as good as he will.
The McCain ads were designed to make the Obama campaign think twice about plastering every billboard, and keep a lower profile *for fear of overdoing things*. The ads are designed to headfake the Obama campaign into keeping a lower profile.
McCain’s campaign didn’t want Obama’s face associated with Olympic success, giving him too high a platform before his convention bounce, which would then be harder for the GOP convention bounce to overtake - thus another media cycle.
If they keep it level prior to the Conventions, then they will get roughly equal bounces, and the GOP will have a slight lead just after Labour day. That’s best case, and that’s what they were aiming for, I think.
68 - If Satan himself had been the architect, they could not have made Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport any worse than it is.
46. But is Obama really trailing? He had leads similar to the generic Democrat against all the rest of the Republicans. It’s not that Obama is underperforming, its that McCain is overperforming. The likelihood and size of an Obama win will be entirely down to how well he paints McCain as a normal Republican.
52. You can hardly can elections in either country “free and fair”.
64. This post is almost a parody.
1) Obama’s polls did not improve. The gap between the candidates decreased. If you object to the use of the word ‘crashed’, you are right it is not literally a fair representation - but this is an internet forum, there is no requirement to weigh every word’s literal interpretation, and the point intended was obvious and correct.
2) Once again the evidence you provide proves the opposite of what you claim! The polls ticked down and then stayed flat. That represents a downturn in the lead. This is unsurprising because the averages you provided showed exactly that!
A league of democracies sounds a bit like ‘nice people like us’, excluding nasty people like Putin, who use military might to make their point when diplomacy has failed.
Democracies have to abide by the norms of international relations regardless of the niceness of the people they have to deal with. If Bush had ‘done business’ with Putin, and accepted his offer of no further expansion of NATO, in exchange for his accepting Kosovan independence, the war in South Ossetia would not now be happening.
There cannot be politically correct and incorrect countries, as Putin is now demonstrating. Power is power, and has to be negotiated with, whether democratic or otherwise.
70. Interesting point! I just think that it can easily be circumvented. Obama just has to be a bit more precise in what he’s saying. He should make clear that he is only the messenger, not the message. This is a lesson he better learns now, anyway.
I find it very striking how similar the actual campaign is to the primaries. There too, we had a long phase of Obama-mania, which ended rather abruptly just before Texas/Ohio. Then, like now, a certain Obama-fatigue set in. Clinton subsequently managed to reinvent herself as the “working woman” (at least in my eyes it was quite a stretch and only made possible by Obama’s blatant failure at seizing this mantle). Perhaps we are at the same juncture now. Obama should better make sure that in the end, McCain will not be seen as the guy who will help Joe American survive the gas spike. Unlike the primaries, election day is all that counts.
As long as McCain is still occupied with “change you can Xerox”-style attacks, there’s time.
75. But that was a pathetic deal, hugely slanted in favour of Russia - Bush was right to reject it.
I think ukpaul’s point is that Obama’s numbers didn’t drop. All that happened was a slight rise in McCain’s support, from him solidifying his base through the negative ads.
70. Morus. I would agree with that.
Separately, I was a huge Obama fan at the beginning of this campaign and I still want him to win. But his novelty is wearing a bit thin with me. Additionally, as the long term favourite and poll leader, he is vulnerable to the media and the electorate’s desire for a horse race.
Whoever I start supporting in a two horse race I tend to develop a sympathy for the underdog.
I also feel the South Ossetia crisis will assist McCain. Some argue here that McCain’s foreign policy credentials are undeserved. That may be true but he has the reputation as a strong candidate to be Commander in Chief and if the electorate feel the world is suddenly a more dangerous place, they may be more inclined to hold onto nurse, for fear of something worse.
71. I’ve been through O’Hare a couple of times, seemed mildly annoying but generally bearable. Isn’t it the world’s busiest?
Tenerife is pretty grim.
Anyway, enough of this excitingly jet-setty chitchat. I have to go. Despite having a new DONGLE to fit in my exciting SLINGBOX I still have a dodgy LAPTOP whose battery lasts barely three MINUTES.
See you in Thailand!
Who defines what a “Democracy” is? Is South Africa which is effectively a one party state? What about Belgium which can outlaw a popular Flemish nationalist party on a whim? How about the UK where 65% of the population voted against the ruling party?
The “League of Democracies” will simply be an American controlled rival to the United Nations and will no doubt be used to justify future illegal military action.
79 - Agreed. How good McCain’s foreign policy credentials are is not that important.
This is about whether the election is principally for a new Head of Government or a new Commander in Chief.
This election will be decided, not by the answers given, but by the questions asked - Mommy and Daddy issues.
The Georgian conflict being the main issue is good for McCain because it is a Daddy issue, and he is the ex military Republican. Unless he gaffes horribly, this sets a narrative that is not so good for Obama. That he isn’t exactly Henry Kssinger is somewhat moot.
78. My response was very clear. The polls got suddenly much worse for Obama, both the averages and the specific polls. He quibbled over the exact method of expression to avoid accepting a fact that didn’t suit his biases. He then claimed that averages were a better measure than specific polls when the averages showed exactly the same fact. It’s tiresome.
There is an interesting article here which makes the point in the final paragraph that neither campaign is comfortable talking about the economy yet:
One challenge both candidates share is their struggle to gain an edge on the economy. “The dominant issue in this election is what you broadly call pocketbook and the economy, and both candidates for some reason don’t have a voice on it and they don’t seem comfortable,” Dowd said. “They talk about it and move off of it quickly. . . . The first one to get a voice on it will have an advantage.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/09/AR2008080900801_2.html
“O/T but would anyone agree that whilst Thatcher’s legacy may have been pushing Labour to the right, Blair’s will prove to be one of moving the Tories to the left?
Seriously, I think I could tolerate a Cameron government fairly easily.”
I think much will depend on the size of the Conservative majority at the next election. If the Conservatives win narrowly, then the answer to your question is probably Yes. If they win big, it probably isn’t.
Unlike Labour in the run up to the 1997 election, very few Conservatives believe they have lost significant intellectual arguments against Labour.
81. We could replace ‘league of democracies’ with ‘league of English speaking nations’. Now that is something worth signing up for.
WRT the US election, it interests me, but I’m pretty neutral about who wins. I can’t see it in the Manichean terms that some people do.
74 - Why you always seem to pick arguments where you are demonstrably incorrect god only knows. Some sort of weird masochistic tendency you have maybe.
You try on very obvious Rove type tactics to try to claim that the truth is somehow a lie, in fact you are the mirror image of your idol. In your world being behind is a victory, gaining support is crashing and gaining support is a loss.
Your guy is behind, his campaign is poor and he is running a hateful, despicable campaign. Live with it, embrace it.
You are quite, quite mad.
League of Democracies???!
Like Cameron, McCain is more suitably a recruiter for the League of Gentlemen! (Combovers ‘R’Us)!
I agree that McCain gets more likely to win the worse things get. Sadly, it looks like he might win.
I say sadly not because I think he’ll be worse than Obama, I say sadly because for him to win things have to be a bit grim.
84. But didn’t Labour move so far to the right on the economy and on public services (PFI, academies) that the Tories haven’t had to move left? Isn’t it the case that Thatcherism was seen as extremist, but now is mainstream? The bad press for Brown et al seems to be on old Labour themes - economic incompetence, too much tax, too much expenditure, statism, Brown as Stalin, statistics not people, over-regulation etc.
87. I would be more than happy to debate with you if you didn’t resort to abuse as a response to any point you disagree with. Given that you can’t manage that, let’s not bother.
Just to follow up, from what I read on the comments section of 538, this is Obama’s spot:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hands_ad/
It’s a pretty weak ad, in my opinion, quite sterile. Nevertheless, as an issues spot, it will be a contrast.
Russia seems to simply have won in Georgia. Thanks to the combination of the Olympics, Edwards, and the fact that Obama’s response was quick and in line with world leader, I cannot see McCain winning many point with this. Provided Putin does not march all the way to Tbilisi, that is.
So back to the Olympics. Should you bet on them, don’t put money on the German team returning with anything but severe respiratory problems.
I think the most telling thing about the current state of this election isn’t that Obama is behind where he “should be” in the polls, but in the reaction to the Obama campaign to this media narrative. With Clinton, Giuliani, Romney, Thompson and yes, even McCain, when the polls weren’t doing well for them a real sense of crisis and panic leaked from the campaigns. There was in-fighting, there was finger-pointing, there were resignations and there were reshuffles. The Obama campaign, by contrast, has remained united, focused, calm and collected. That should tell the punters where their money should be going.
There is a serious factor which will affect the chances of a Mccain win.
Polling-booth racism.
My time in the US has hardened me to the fact that large chunks of notionally ‘liberal’ America are still steeped in tribalism of the most basic sort. For Obama to win in Novemeber he will have to be a LONG way ahead in the polls because what people say to pollsters is more likely to be how they think they SHOULD vote than how they WOULD (in privacy of ballot and with no turning back) vote.
I was at the cricket today - and saw de Villiers get out on 97!
AHA HA HA! A HAHAHA!
Tee to the Hee!!
90. You can point to leftward moves, such as promising to match Labour’s public spending proposals, although the pledge runs out in 2010, in any case. Likewise Theresa May’s enthusiasm for new laws on equality and diversity etc.
OTOH, suppose the Conservatives win 350+ seats at the next election. Most of the 170 or so new MPs will be people who instinctively want to cut public spending as a proportion of GDP, are eurosceptic, want to curb immigration, build more prisons etc.
93. Socrates. You may be right there. Or you may be describing an overconfidence that proves to be Obama’s undoing.
5% is actually outside of the margin of error in a poll of polls - Obama’s polls have been consistent for months - with a 4% to 5% lead (apart from a slight bump to an 8% lead a few weeks ago). 4/5% was the biggest lead Bush ever held over Kerry in 2004.
McCain can’t win, the Republican brand is toxic and McCain and his campaign are incompetent. The overriding issue (as here) will be the economy, the Republicans have lost their credibility in this area and McCain is the last person who could bring it back.
Having said all that this isn’t a national race, it’s a state by state race and Obama has more states in the bank than McCain and the important swing states will fall for Obama - just look at what’s happening in Ohio. If McCain wins there after the events of the last week then i’ll eat my own face.
95.
Cricket is surely the ultimate in snobbery. “In order to differentiate myself from the hoi polloi, I am willing to pay to spend days watch my own particular brand of paint drying. And when it rains, I will sit all day and talk about the paint not drying!”
98 it was a bit boring today……….
On topic, it sounds like a good idea in theory. The UN has some very undesirable aspects, including that countries such as China and Russia have vetoes they don’t always use in particularly good ways (but also countries such as Zimbabwe and Libya getting positions on human rights committees etc)
However as many have pointed out, when you look at this idea in detail it obviously becomes unworkable, as either it would be a club of Switzerland and maybe Norway, or it would have some fairly unpleasant coutries in who we or the USA happened to be friends with currently.
On Stodge’s point at 24: So some countries should be dictatorships/totalitarian because that’s what the people probably want, and they might not like nasty Western democracy? How do we know? Perhaps they should have a vote on it, and then again every few years in case they change their minds?
96 True but there will inevitably be differences of degree among them. While for instance 90% would probably call themselves eurosceptic there is a broad spectrum from the sort of Malcom Rifkind type to that MP for Shipley Philip Davies.
84. Agreed. There’s not been much change in the Tory arguments for the smaller state and Thatcherite economics - Labour adopted so much of the Thatcherite agenda under Blair. The ‘big’ economic argument was won by the right and has remained so. You could argue that the Tories’ promises to keep spending levels as they are is a move to the left - in some ways this is true but I’d argue it’s been conceded strategically in order to make the party look more ‘caring’ and competant economically.
So did Blair move the Tories to the left? Marginally but the parties were so ideologically close that we’re mainly talking about a few semantics here and there.
100. The Security Council veto might look like a horrible, inefficient, ineffective and cumbersome instrument; but when you think about it, it’s the kind of thing that’s needed in an institution like the UN. The founders recognised that a major power would not be happy at all if it thought other members were riding roughshod over its policies and this could have led to withdrawal and further conflict (essentially what happen to the League of Nations).
From the point of view of *preventing* conflict and keeping consistancy with the interpretation of the Charter, the veto is pretty useless. But it coaxes the big powers to the negotiating table in a way that countless majority votes and reprisals would never achieve.
101/102 Don’t overlook the way a governing party may completely take people by surprise in what it does. Who would have thought the New Zealand Labour Party would have unleashed an economically liberal revolution after 1984? Roger Douglas was someone who didn’t have a socialist bone in his body, and managed to hijack an entire party.
103 I agree with you, in that there isn’t a better way to do it (that I can think of) and the League of Democracies isn’t it either. However there are times when rather unpleasantly run countries seem to have a bit too much of a say, which is where this idea comes from.
46 Read Andrew Sullivan. I think there are 2 reasons 1 McCain himself. Obama is good but so is McCain any other GOP candidate would be fried this year. 2. The Democrats in Congress. Everyone can see they are heading for a massive win and that hurts Obama. Amercans saw with Bill Clinton 1992-1994 and Bush 2000-2006 how unfettered power can be misused. If anything a Democrat could have greater power after this election as they could come close to the 60 votes they need in order to break a Senate filibuster. Americans are cautious and it may well turn on how much Obama can reassure them that he won’t then go overboard and how much MCcain can reassure them that he could still work with huge Democratic majorities.
96. I’ve missed the Theresa May thing. On the other hand there’s the pledge to withdraw from the social chapter, which I’m surprised is still on the table given the perception of the leftward drift by the tories on social matters. (I’m a Tory voter this time, and I’m actually surprised given my image of the party that they have a policy I agree with in this matter - it shows how effective their rebranding has been).
It’s a funny one. The Tories want to talk about schools and welfare when they have to talk policy, and their policies are fairly right-wing on those policies, but they’re also consistent with Blair’s approach. I think the most important thing for the Tories is they have passed the ‘one of us’ test by - mainly - not seeming to hate gay people any more. It seems trite, but I think a lot of the reason Tories were so despised by the 1997 voters (definitely my generation which was coming of age then) was their prudish and hypocritical attitudes to sexual morality. Which is why Gove’s recent teachings on healthy sexuality went down like a lead balloon.
104. Sean Fear. What are you surmising for the UK parties future direction?
77. It might have been a lousy deal, but if the US and the EU are not going to commit military force to back up their negotiating positions with Russia, they might as piss in the wind. Better to negotiate to the extent of your potential to enforce your position, than extend well beyond that potential, as have done the EU/US - in the mistaken belief that their cause is right and therefore that might will somehow magically appear. It hasn’t done and now Georgians are dying along with South Ossetians to no purpose.
Who would have thought the New Zealand Labour Party would have unleashed an economically liberal revolution after 1984? - To an extent that was true of Thatcher. There was a broad sense of her inclination but I bet no one could have foreseen the extent of the changes she would make by 1990 in say 1975.
110. Or even in 1979! She presented herself as a leader who would tighten the purse strings, control the unions and carefully manage the economy - the line you often hear is the “housewife” approach…
It soon became very apparent that Thatcher was going to move beyond those things and attempt a complete economic revolution.
110 Good point. But I think what the NZ Labour Party did (or what they allowed Roger Douglas to do) was even more astonishing.
107 Yes, it’s intriguing that so long as you have “modern” attitudes on sex, people will give you a great deal of latitude to pursue right wing policies in almost every other field.
107. Agreed. Personally I hate politicians that come over as ‘preachy;’ and the Tory Party of the 1990s was full of them. Unfortunately, they were replaced by a Labour Party who are even more preachy, just in a different way. (Labour doesn’t often preach sexual politics like the Tories did - but it preaches on just about everything else).
The Tory Party of 2008 has lost a lot of that. As long as they don’t go ‘back to basics’ and anti-gay again, they should be better than the current lot.
113. The Harman policy on employment actually seems to mirror the back to basics campaign. A fading government promoting an ideologically held morality (heterosexuality, fidelity, marriage for the Tories; equality of outcome for Labour) which most people aren’t that bothered about but resent being lectured on. It just seemed so out of touch with the public mood, and so unaware of what had been annoying the electorate.
111. Yes. It amazes me how her most ardent self proclaimed followers never mention that and slate Cameron as a consequence for it.
95 yes, the foul De Villiers beast was tamed by Ringmaster Monty - no-one deserves a century when they dance down the wicket like Thora Hird in Doc Martens.
98 yes it probably is snobby - snobby and thoroughly entertaining. For you and others that fail to appreciate its wonder I am sure they can show some association football or the like.
98
Wage Slave. I take it your antipathy to cricket is because you lack the intelligence or concentration to understand it. Hence your meaningless drivel on the subject.
There are plenty among the “hoi polloi” who love and appreciate test cricket.
The fact that more people don’t watch it (or even County cricket) is a function of having to work for a living. The number who nevertheless do all they can to follow the scores as they can is testament to that.
119 all about the working class appreciating cricket!
114: Yes, nothing “preachy” in Gove’s attack on lad’s mags.
Duh.
119 and the toffs too - some of whom associate with the working classes outside of a master/domestic/little man who can situation - its all very modern.
I guess you’ll be tandeming with Cooke now then? A Welsh Goldie/Ave It tandem road race entry? Or is it still all about the Pendleton?
You seem to misread the American system.
Obama’s average lead in the poll has stayed steady for the past two months - regardless of the statistical noise - at around 5 pts.
First that’s not margin of error. That’s beyond it.
But more importantly, if you look at the state-by-state polling which is much more relevant for the Presidential election (Electoral College and such) what we are looking at right now is a landslide for Obama who would win two thirds of the votes in the electoral college.
Be careful not to let media narrative cloud your judgement here. The American media want this to be a race for obvious reasons and are spinning things as such. Actual polling shows a VERY different story.
109 I simply couldn’t say, without knowing the outcome of the next election.
I am 90% sure the Conservatives will win it, but I think the likely direction of UK politics depends on the size of the victory.
124 Neither Gallup nor Rasmussen are indicating a 5% lead, though (they’re the ones that get reported here). And, in practice, it’s the national, not State, polls that count, unless the candidates are within 1% of each other,
123 still quite like the Pendleton call - not necessarily with the bicycle………….
127 So be it then.
Has Milliband sorted out Georgia yet?
126 And, in practice, it’s the national, not State, polls that count, unless the candidates are within 1% of each other - Not so. Bush was I think at least 2-2.5% clear of Kerry but won thanks to 100,000 votes more in Ohio. If you were right Obama would flood Texas and McCain California.
122. Ahem, I said “lost a lot of that,” not lost completely. I agree it’s preachy and don’t like it when politicians say things like that.
126 Sean F. Incorrect. It’s state polls that count as the Electoral College is a FPTP state by state contest. The recent average of national polls is around a 5/6% lead for Obama.
What I mean is that while it’s theoretically possible to have a substantial national lead, and lose, in the Electoral College, it’s most unlikely that the person who leads in votes will lose the Electoral College, unless it’s very close.
In theory, a few hundred thousand votes in the right constituencies could have produced a Conservative majority in 2005, but it would have been a most unlikely outcome.
131 How much more accurate are the state polls in the presidential race as opposed to the primaries? They certainly didn’t win prizes January through May.
132. America is probably the most likely place where you could lose on votes, but win in the College. Not sure what your point is here Sean
128 I’m sure milliband will take his usual firm stance!
Milliband = Clegg HEHEHE
My point is that the national polls will be a better pointer to the outcome than looking at the polls State by State.
135 Apparantly he is going to make a statement after he finishes his Egg and Chips and tour of the ‘real Minorca’ on a Lambretta.
Milliband = Clegg = Foot = AB De Villiers = Eddie the Eagle Edwards
132 In Britain yes but in America with vast states and most being winner take all it is quite possible. A total lack of campaigning by Obama in Texas or McCain in California after Labor Day could well affect the national vote totals quite significantly. As said Bush was at least 2% clear of Kerry nationally but squeaked home only thanks to 100,000 votes more in Ohio which gave him all the EC votes.
132 Sean F. It’s not a theory. 2000 attests to that. Indeed some pundits have stated that this year Obama might win a very clear majority of votes, racking up big margins is very blue states (California, New York) and losing narrowly in the south and in the swing states. McCain only has to hold the line to win and indeed can afford to lose Iowa and New Mexico and still win.
The maximum tipping point is likely around +5 million votes for Obama.
131 as the Electoral College is a FPTP state by state contest. - Some but not all states split their ECVs by PV totals.
133/136 Ted/Sean. Clearly some state poll are more reliable than others. In 04 Rasmussen called every state accurately and this primary season there have been notable successes by a number of pollsters.
538.com partly weight their state projections by the recent accuracy of the pollsters.
139 McCain only has to hold the line to win and indeed can afford to lose Iowa and New Mexico and still win. - Are you sure. Maybe from 2004 but not 2000 certainly.
139 The candidates were within 1% of each other in 2000, as were Labour and Conservatives in 1951, when the Conservatives just nosed ahead of Labour in terms of seats.
If Obama has a lead of 5/6% on polling day, he’ll be home and dry, regardless of the outcome in individual States.
Random Thoughts
1. Notion that the Hoover Institution is some kind of objective forum total BS; they are bunch of rightwingers, either neocons or old farts. In either case, less crediblity that a Pat Robertson Law School graduate.
2. Re: Kwaime Kilpatrick the criminally stupid mayor of Detroit, apparently many have not noticed that Obama is running as a total contrast to this kind of cheapjack professional African American crap politico. Kwaime Kilpatrick = Jesse Jackson. NOT Barrack Obama. Aren’t you people paying attention?
3. Notion that the John Edwards admission that he’s the exactly as phony as many of us have been saying for years is NOT “tearing the Democratic base apart” becaue most of the base was never that hot on him anyway. True, he had a lot of good Democrats on his side. But today these hate his lying guts; number who think that he’s a “victim” (JE’s own line) is nil.
140 Punter. Only Maine and Nebraska split the votes by Congressional district.
124 - I’d say it was more like 3.5% ahead on average but, yes, that’s right. Both the US and UK have political media which creates a narrative based on what sells rather than on actuality, those who just rely on what they read, see and hear are at a disadvantage compared to those who look at the raw figures.
Both country’s media also tend to be days behind as well, still talking about poll movements from days before which have subsequently been contradicted. I thought 24 hour news was supposed to be quick at reacting.
Thatcher clearly dragged Labour to the right far more than anyone could suggest Blair has dragged the Tories left. In fact, having the Tories even moved at all from their ’90s position? Probably at the turn of the millenium, the Tories moved way right as the radicals pushed the party further in order to create clear blue water. If Blair has done anything, it is probably just to stop the rightwards momentum… for now.
140 Only two states that have split EVs by congressional district are Nebraska (5 EV) and Maine (2 EV). Note that in actual fact all EVs from both states have never been split. Looking ahead to 2008, the likelihood is that this will continue, with McCain winning all NB EVs, and Obama winning all ME EVs.
Out of interest, why is that West Virginia, solidly Democratic for years, has voted Republican in the last two Presidential elections, and looks as though it will do in November?
142 Punter. Kerry plus Iowa and New Mexico = Obama 264 .. McCain 274.
I doubt there will be a landslide either way this year. It just does not seem to happen when there is no incumbant (Or even VP in this case!). Look at all the close races in the past they are always *new candidate elections*. Such as 2000, 1968, 1960 etc.
It is usually only presidents seeking re-election who get landslides in vote and EC delegates. I think Reagan is the only candidate for pre