I have read most of the political threads in GD and BBQ pit with regards to upcoming presidential election. The general idea that I get from reading those threads is that Obama is going to win but McCain is not without a chance. As an asian who is following this election with an interest, it looks like a no brainer to select Obama ( I preferred Hilary to win the primaries though) as US president.
But looking at some of the voting predictions I can still see that republicans are going to win large number of states ( http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/).
How can this be possible? The current republican party policies are certainly questionalble and how can these ideas possibly get any backing from the voting bases?
Addtional question, what is the general perception of Bill Clinton era in USA? If the choice was between Bill Clinton and Obama what would be the choice?
The short answer is that different issues are important to different people, and on some issues which are important to some people, McCain is viewed as more favorable.
Some examples:
Abortion-- This is one of the major polarizing issues in American politics. There are a great many people on both sides for whom the abortion issue alone is important enough to trump all other issues. McCain is viewed as being more opposed to abortion than Obama, so the single-issue abortion opponents are mostly lined up behind McCain.
Guns-- Another polarizing issue, though it’s somewhat fading out of the spotlight in the past year or two. Some people want as many restrictions on private use and ownership of guns as possible; some people want as few as possible. McCain is stronger on the “few restrictions” side than Obama, so those voters for whom guns are most important also back McCain.
The haves vs. have-nots issue-- A classic in politics for probably all of human history. Comparatively, Obama’s policies favor the have-nots, while McCain’s policies favor the haves (this is most apparent in their tax plans). So many haves who are voting their pocketbook support McCain. Of course, there are relatively few true haves, but they can also spend money to convince others of their views.
Race-- There are still some people in this country who do not think that any black man could possibly be qualified to be President, despite any evidence to the contrary. Hopefully, this group is small, but they’re undeniably still there, and they’re lined up behind the white guy.
Religion-- For the past few decades, the Republicans have made a much larger show of Christianity than have the Democrats. It’s certainly debatable (especially this year) how much of that show is accurate, but at least some people believe it.
Because each state has a unique populace and “flavor” if you will. The attitudes and beliefs of the majority of people in South Dakota are certainly not the same as those in California. Why would you expect everyone in our broad nation to hold the same values??? The fact that we are NOT all the same is just another argument (among many) for the Electoral College.
Basically, the Democrats are trying hard to frame the debate exactly as you put it–current policies vs. something better. If everyone accepted that, the Democrats would win this one in a landslide. But not everyone accepts that interpretation of the contest. For many people in America, the Republican Party represents something much bigger and better than the current policies of the White House–a whole philosophy and set of principles that they still believe in. I think a lot of loyal Republicans are thinking back to more successful and popular leaders such as Reagan, and hoping that John McCain might lead them back to that sort of success.
Of course there are also those who think Obama is a secret Nazi Muslim Communist . . . I’m not going to try to guess what percentage of the red-state vote those people comprise.
I agree with the general point of your post, but the above is a really left way of looking at this issue. A more unbiased treatment would be that each party has a different view on the fundamental role of government and the relationship between people and the government.
This is what puzzling me. How can the voters keep current administration policies away from a member of the same administration, same party candidate?? How can McCain move away from an administration which is failing and win the election from the same party?? the typical south asian political approach would have been to break away from republican party and create a new party called “United States Freedom Party” and contest election.
At this day and age, how can the most advanced nation in the world gets wrapped up in issues such as guns,abortions,race and religion? I can understand having a small number of fundamentalists who are hell bent not having gun control but a whole state to be won by a candidate who advices against common sense in the world? Maybe I have seen USA through sitcoms and movies.
They’ll start as soon as some pundit seriously projects the EC and popular vote yielding different results this year. But I’m not seeing any disparity on the polling analyses yet – both methods consistently favor Obama.
That is not logically inconsistent with what Chronos said. And what Chronos said is definitely true. Whereas WRT what you said, I’m seeing a split emerge on that very question within Republican ranks, showing clearly in the recent votes on the bailout bill(s).
Because in the U.S. distancing oneself from a particular administration does not mean, ipso facto, distancing themselves from that administration’s Party. Generally for partisan voters, traditionally a large chunk of the American electorate and an even larger chunk of the actual voting electorate, party trumps personality.
In many Asian countries parties tend to exist to prop up candidates. In the U.S. that is to some extent reversed - candidates are more front men for particular political philosophies. This isn’t universal, but many, many U.S. voters vote for a philosophical slate rather than an individual. If you spend enough time combing through even the unscientific political polls on this site you will run into numerous instances of people “holding their nose” to vote for an unpalatable candidate of the party ( and by extension, the party platform and propaganda ) they favour. Counter-examples of personality-driven political parties are rare. Theodore Roosevelt and his short-lived “Bull Moose Party” is one and he quite notably failed.
The very nature of the virtually locked in Two Party System in the United States in the modern era guarantees that they are far larger, far wealthier and vastly more powerful ( in a certain limited sense ) than any one candidate AND they must by definition encompass a wide array of disparate interests. Many fiscally conservative/social libertarian Republicans despise the more hardcore socially conservative Republicans. But as long as the candidate chosen isn’t too extreme in either direction and pays enough lip service to both, they will stick with him/her. To do otherwise would be to completely marginalize themselves, as Third Party candidates are almost invariably doomed to failure. Both the fiscal conservatives for whom economics trumps social policy in choosing a president and the social conservatives for whom social policy trumps economic populism, are going to vote Republican first in most scenarios. And vice versa for the Democrat voters of course.
McCain isn’t quite a member of the current administration: He’s a member of the legislature, but the legislature and the executive are almost completely separate in the US. He was also a legislator during the Clinton administration, and Bush Sr., and Regan. As for starting a splinter party, that’s very difficult to pull off under our system: Usually, all that happens is that a third party is either completely irrelevant, or guarantees defeat for whichever of the main parties they’re closer to.
Because we’re still human, just like the citizens of every other nation on the planet.
The fact that we are NOT all the same is just another argument (among many) for the Electoral College.