WASHINGTON DC: As I said in the early hours of the morning, it was a night that decided nothing. A night that posed more questions than it answered.
I'd like to hear what questions you are asking, and to have a go at answering some of them.
So please write to me using the comment form below.
Replies tomorrow.
Jump to more content from this blog
Hello, I'm Justin Webb and I'm the 主播大秀's North America editor.
You can stay up to date with Justin Webb's America via these feeds.
Justin Webb's America Feed(RSS)
Justin Webb's America Feed(ATOM)
If you aren't sure what RSS is you'll find useful.
|
Nick Robinson: |
 |
|
Douglas Fraser: |
 |
|
Brian Taylor: |
 |
 |
|
Richard Black: |
 |
|
Jonathan Amos: |
 |
主播大秀 漏 2014 The 主播大秀 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
Why does Obama do better in the caucus format?
Which is a fairer way to vote - a caucus or a primary?
Hi, just wondering who you think would win if it comes to a head-to-head between John McCain vs Clinton, and also your views on McCain vs Obama
thanks
With the Democratic race so close, what do you think the chances are of Florida and Michigan's delegates coming back into play with the advantage to Senator Clinton?
1) Do you think it is possible Bill Clinton perhaps secretly does not want his wife to win? Maybe even on a subconscious level? It would explain his uncharacteristic blunders over the past few weeks. And how is their relationship bearing up at the moment? Are there any rumours of splits in the Clinton household at the moment because of Bill's unhelpful comments about Obama?
2) If Obama was clearly winning in a few weeks (big if) and offered Hilary to become the vice (again big if) is there any chance she would accept? I doubt it somehow. Is she is too big a figure to humble herself like that?
Questions 1) Clinton is essentially offering to bring back her husband's administration from the 1990s. How much did his economic success derive from his tenure during the dot-com bubble. 2) The Clinton administration can be fairly criticized for cautious incrementalism and a failure to act on major issues (Rwanda,health care and, perhaps, terrorism). They created jobs, but largely minimum wage jobs. I request a more balanced discussion of the first Clinton tenure. 3) McCain hasn't developed credible positions on the economy or health care. I suspect that he didn't expect to do this well. Candidate "laziness" is not tolerable at this point. 4) Does McCain have a clear sense of how we should "confront" terrorism? Although it is admirable to not want to embarrass our military forces by withdrawing from Iraq without clear victory, how will he sustain his program from a fiscal and military manpower viewpoint
It seems likely that the upcoming primaries may also be a wash leaving both candidates well within reach of the nomination; now it's fairly clear that Senator Clinton has recieved the backing of a number of super-delegates. Now ordinarily in a typical year a significant number of super-delagetes may choose to attend to other matters during the convention - that's to say they don't show-up. Given the value that their votes are currently held at, it is to be expected that both candidates may make an extra effort to, well put it bluntly, persuade them that their ideals/candidacy is worthy of the delagets support - what signs, if any, of this are cropping up? Also, on the surface at least it would almost seems as though Senator Obama has mostly ignored the super-delagets yet Senator Kennedy's endorsement, makes this seem rather suspect, - is there really a strong effort to persuda these delagetes covertly to avoid the stigma of pork-barrel politics or is his campaign betting it all on his alure to ordinary voters?
Justin,
Just a quick Q from a Canadian observer of American politics. The likelihood that McClain will have Huckabee as his running mate when all is said and done is IMHO quite high. But given the enmity of a fortnight ago that has now interestingly morphed into public reference to 'friends', how high do you rank the possibility of Clinton having Obama (or vice versa) as a running mate in the presidential vote? After all, Machiavelli recommends keeping your 'enemies' closer to you than your friends. RSVP.
Obama and Clinton's campaign team, and different media outlets, are giving different numbers for the amount of delegates each campaign has. What's the most accurate answer?
I've seen various conflicting total delegates results for the Obama/Clinton race without any attribution of what the figures are based on. Most have large amounts of exit polling data involved in the estimates.
The 主播大秀 has been touting a figure of 765 delegates for Obama but I've seen anything from about 700 to just over 900 quoted on various reputed media outlet websites.
Can you tease these values apart, or at least tell us where the 主播大秀 gets the 765 -845 split it keeps quoting without any attribution?
If Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continue to split the Democratic delegates as the primaries continue, as I think likely, then neither will get enough delegates to win the nomination outright. This will mean that, practically, the nominee will be selected at the convention by the vote of the "superdelegates."
If the superdelegates are perceived as coronating someone in an unfair fashion, such a result could make meaningless all the hard work and votes cast by all the party's supporters in the primaries.
Do you think, if Hillary Clinton were to be selected solely by the vote of the superdelegates, that this kind of backroom deal would risk losing all the new young and African-American voters Obama has energized when the general election comes around?
Second, do you think both candidates would agree to take a pledge now that the superdelegate votes would be split pro-rata, based on the primary results in actual elections?
Given the historically deep-seated racism of US society (black-white intermarriage virtually non-existent for example), and politics apart, is America ready for a non-caucasian president?
Why in some states do all the delegates go to the winner and in other, a candidate can win the race but get less delegates?
Justin,
Thanks for your informative reports.
My questions relate to the Democrat race.
Is it possible for the race to be so close that there is no clear winner by the time of the convention in Denver? If no candidate has a majority, who decides who wins? Can another candidate be put forward (Al Gore, anyone...)
Finally, has this scenario ever happened before.
This scenario surely must John McCain's dream for the spring and summer - but can it happen?
Given the continuing close race between the Democratic candidates, I have two questions:
1) The Florida/Michigan question. There will be continued pressure to include these candidates, which would be of huge benefit to Hilary. Do you think this could happen- and if so, would anyone make any attempts at forcing a re-vote? If not, could Hilary's campaign actually be damaged by her participation in an "undemocratic" vote?
2) Assuming a tight race all the way to the convention, what do you see happening with the superdelegates? Is it at all likely that they could change allegiances late in the game?
Oh OK, three questions:
3) Am I right in saying that pledged delegates don't actually have to vote for the candidates they are pledged to? If I am, could that ever happen, or would the outcry be too much?
Many people complain that Ron Paul has been sidelined. I personally think it's because he's a bit too radical for everyone's taste at the moment... but other people simply complain that for some unknown reason the media ignores him.
I'd like to hear why you think Ron Paul isn't more popular and/or how a seemingly "just as good" candidate can end up with no chance and no hope of making it to the white house.
Is it a given that the "loser" out of Senators Clinton and Obama will end up as the running mate i.e. prospective vice president? If that were the case, what are the chances of a Blair-Brown type deal - one term as president for the victor who then steps aside for the other?
How much of their campaign money is this democrat battle between Hillary and Obama? Will this leave them weak when it comes to the election when they could face a well funded republican oponent or is there significant additional party funds that will be made available to the final nominee?
Hi Justin
It seems to me that race is still an elephant in the room in the US. On C4 news last night at 22:00hrs, a Black Congressman supporting Hillary (believing his interview would not be shown in the US) opined that "Racism is still so strong in America".
And I note that Clinton has won some big states, however narrowly : Ca, NY and NJ, let alone Mass in the Kennedy backyard.
On this basis - hidden agendas, and Clinton winning the big states (with Texas, Ohio and Penn still to come) how can Obama really hope to win the nomination ?
When a politician like Obama says "Change is coming to America", this implies he knows where to go acquire this change (if so why not go get it and show everyone what it is and means), or does it say change is coming no matter what; with or without me?
It just seems odd, that he is not speaking about change in the first person, because ostensibly that is what he is "trying" to say, but does not actually say it.
What are your thoughts on this?
Hi Justin.
The clock is striking midnight and bedtime over here.
As an American living and working in the UK, I enjoy your reports and personal outlook on what is going on in the US.
Just wondered if you have read the article in the NYTimes about Hilary being a PC and Barack a Mac. Of course the article was referring to the websites of the two candidates but do you think this comparison is also reflected in their campaigning and personal styles?
By the way, I'm a Mac user but this is not necessarily how I voted........or is it? It doesn't matter, as long as the Democrats are back in the White House and in control of Congress.
Cheers,
P
What impact will Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter's vitriol have on the unity of the Republican party assuming McCain wins the nomination? What does McCain need to say at CPAC to the economic right?
If Michigan and Florida votes do come into play will Hillary's negatives rise, spiking within her own party?
When people vote in primaries or caucuses, does every eligible voter cast a vote in both the Democrat and Republican primary/caucus? Or do they have to choose only one? And if they have to choose, how are they 'streamed' to a single primary/caucus? What is to stop say Republicans voting to spoil the pitch of a particular Democrat and vice versa? And finally, what about Independents? This cocktail is vexing me!
best regards
If McCain takes the Republican nomination named Huckabee as running mate, what would Utah do?
Why is this race so similar to the last two series of the west wing?
Republicans look to be choosing an experienced (old) candidate, with lots of foreign policy experience, to the left of their party, who will need big help from his running mate with evangelicals.
The democrats are moving perilously towards a convention fight for their nominee who may or may not end up as a minority candidate.
So I suppose my real question is:
Would a convention nomination process really be damaging for the democrats? Or is there the potential for three days of nationally televised political coverage being beneficial?
May be its because I'm a politics nerd but I think the democrats in particular have a chance to show off the American electoral process at its best and most exiting.
@ Greg Smythe: Delegate counts are different depending on whether they're showing the confirmed pledged delegates or estimated outcomes when the final delegate allocations aren't done yet - there's still lots delegates to be allocated from California at this point, for example. They will also vary depending on whether they've done some allocating of the superdelegates. EG CNN currently (midnight GMT Wed) shows Clinton 625 from primaries plus 193 supers = 818 - but that only includes 64 from California, with 271 Ca delegates not yet allocated to either candidate.
I've just been reading Malcolm Gladwell's 'Blink'. Interesting that several prospective candidates are outside the stereotype of a tall, white male aged 50-60 yrs..
But once it comes to the crunch, with just two people head to head, might the subconscious urge to stick with the safe and familiar [the old 'better the devil you know' boring predictability] play into the hands of John McCain when it comes to the crunch, whoever it turns it he will be facing in November ?
Or will that 2-second snap decision say that, despite what is in their 'heads', their 'heart' [soul?] thinks they'd prefer a younger guy/gal ?
Would a party ticket of Clinton and Obama combine the respective strengths of both candidates or rather make its strength less than its parts considering Clinton is seen to be a divisive candidate and Obama's theme is unity
Considering there is a racial/gender division to quite an extent in democrats' voting pattern, what are the chances that Hillary and Obama cut a deal and form a winning combination of Presidency/vice presidency against republicans. That way both of them will hold an office.
Do you think that America is ready to vote for a woman president?
Isn't Bill Clinton trying to get a third term as president behind Hillary's skirt? Alot has been written about his charm and attractiveness. To me it seems that his 'charisma' has much to thank Monica for.
Hi Justin
I was wondering how close you think the Democratic race will go, and more to that, if the Democrats see John McCain win the nomination (as looks likely at this stage) early and then has several months head start as the sole candidate, will the party consider pressurising either Obama or Clinton to step aside? And if they did, who would the party go for?
Also, do you believe the Obama vs Clinton battle to be similar to Brown vs Cameron in this country? In that one is seen as showbiz and a charmer (Obama / Cameron) but the other as the political heavyweight (Clinton / Brown)?
Finally, which of the potential candidate do you think most people around the world, not just in America, are likely to warm to the most?
is the polarisation of support based along racial and gender divisions, within American society and among the candidates, likely to be a factor of continued importance? Is this liable to be seen to influence the ability of Obama or Hiliary to win the presidency?
Do you think Mike Huckabee and John McCain met in a sushi bar somewhere and agreed a deal (perhaps a VP nod for Huckabee) to crush Mitt Romney's chances of winning the Republican nomination?
One more.
Do you think Michael Bloomberg is going to launch a campaign for the presidency and if so, do you think that would eat into the Democrats chances of winning the presidency or not? After all, Bloomberg is more McCainist in his views so maybe if he were to launch a campaign it would split the moderate vote that intends to go with McCain.
Essentially, I'm asking this again, despite Kay's (thanks Kay!) addressing a version of my question last night. Granted that Edwards keeps control of however many delegates he has won, as Kay outlined. Also grant that he can allocate them to whomever he pleases. (Is all of this actually correct?) Question: What is the likelihood of him allocating delegates to Obama, over Clinton? (Or vice versa, for that matter?)
Is it possible that a republican civil war could break out due to John McCain becoming there front runner for the nomination and lose one of there biggest assets during election time there ability to unite behind there preferred candidate. I know the social conservatives don't like him but are they willing to gamble and risk giving the Democrats a head start?
Also have the pubic endorsement really changed much this election? I ask because the candidate with the most glittering endorsements has been Obama and he is trailing in the delegate count (admittedly not by much). McCain seems to have the most endorsements on the republican side, but his most important ones only came after it was becoming clear he was the front runner in Florida. Would they have stuck there heads out of the trenches had the vote gone Romneys way? I doubt it. So what real influence did they have?
My question comes in two parts:
A)What percentage of the people who are voting for Huckabee are genuine supporters rather than 'spoilers'for other candidates?
B) Do you think the hardcore Huckabee supporters really will 'hold their noses' and vote for McCain in November(assuming he is the candidate)?
I ask because it strikes me that if at this point there is a large section of Republicans who won't support McCain/Romney will they really follow the conventional wisdom that says they will turn out in a stop Hilary vote(again assuming etc.) or will they find McCain just as bad from the perspective of their priorities?
My sense is that McCain would do better against Clinton than Obama:
Re. Clinton: because republicans don't tend to believe that the Clinton legacy is one of economic successes, and would side with him, however reluctantly, on every other issue.
Re. Obama: because he could cast himself as the outsider, young, untainted by Washington, fresh ideas etc. This could be appealing to younger republicans, particularly if Obama is represented as more evangelical than McCain.
(Personally, I think the one underused and very powerful concept that Obama can put into play is the question of dynasty in electing back-to-back Bush/Clintons.)
The question being:
Could Obama's lack of experience and sharper contrast with McCain be used to his advantage to draw a significant section of the (young, evangelical) republican vote?-- if so, to the degree that he would be a preferable strategic choice for Democrats over Clinton?
Religion and change together might be enough to pull disenchanted republicans away from McCain?
It seems likely that the upcoming primaries may also be a wash leaving both candidates well within reach of the nomination; now it's fairly clear that Senator Clinton has recieved the backing of a number of super-delegates. Now ordinarily in a typical year a significant number of super-delagetes may choose to attend to other matters during the convention - that's to say they don't show-up. Given the value that their votes are currently held at, it is to be expected that both candidates may make an extra effort to, well put it bluntly, persuade them that their ideals/candidacy is worthy of the delagets support - what signs, if any, of this are cropping up? Also, on the surface at least it would almost seems as though Senator Obama has mostly ignored the super-delagets yet Senator Kennedy's endorsement, makes this seem rather suspect, - is there really a strong effort to persuda these delagetes covertly to avoid the stigma of pork-barrel politics or is his campaign betting it all on his alure to ordinary voters?
Hi Justin, we regularly hear that the GOP has a formidable election machine; is this expected to fade with the dissolution of Bush's cabal or is it solidified in the Republican National committee itself?
either way, given that we鈥檙e also told how much the party hates McCain (not least by johnny mac's mother) will he get full access to party resources as nominee, or is it likely he鈥檒l be kept at arms length by certain party elders, in favour of a more conservative candidate whose had time to regroup for the election after this one 鈥 or is it na茂ve to think the GOP would happily miss out on such a big prize as the presidency just because of a few stray Senate votes?
Based on Feb. 5 numbers from NBC News, the demographic breakdown (black votes, white votes, hispanic votes) was as follows:
Sen. Clinton: 17%, 53%, ~62%
Sen. Obama: 81%, 40%, ~38%
Why are reporters and pundits most frequently pointing to and more likely to point to Obama having a major deficiency in reaching across racial lines, whereas the data show the following racial deficits: Clinton's 64% (and growing) gap among blacks and Obama's 13% and 24% (and narrowing) white and hispanic gaps? In other words, why is Obama held to a higher standard of multiracial coalition building than Clinton, when the data and the electoral trends suggest that Clinton's coalition is less diverse than his?
Maybe I just hang out on reddit too much, but after Super Tuesday I am more concerned about the general lack of organization and justice in the voting system in the United States. In your tour of the US have you seen any practices that concern your British sense of what is "proper" for an election? And have you witnessed the use of invisible ink?
First of all, I'd like to say I greatly enjoy your blog's coverage of the race.
Regarding the upcoming primaries/caucuses for the rest of February, it seems that on balance most of them are likely to go for Obama (as things stand). It's also the case that the March 4 primaries in Ohio and Texas are (again, as things stand) trending in favour of Hilary Clinton. However if Obama does well from Feb 9 onwards, in the run-up to the March 4 primaries, what are his chances, in your opinion, of overcoming his deficit in those two key states? Given that Ohio is heavily blue-collar and Texas has a large Hispanic (and Black) population, what does he need to do in order to win them over?
On the Republican side, assuming McCain continues his present run of form, who'd be his best running-mate? Huckabee might soften the Christian Right's attitude towards him, but risk alienating fiscal-Republicans. Vice versa for Romney. Or would Lieberman perhaps be a more attractive choice?
Justin,
In California as in many other states, Clinton has been receiving the majority of the Hispanic votes. Being that their policy differ only slightly, I wondered whether it is because Clinton has appealed more towards hispanics or whether we hispanics are more reluctant to vote for a black candidate?
Adrian
I saw in a recent regular bbc article that you believe that Clinton's candidacy is more viable because she won democrat stronghold states such as NY and California, whereas Obama won republican states like Idaho and Kansas. But won't either candidate win NY and California in the general and lose Idaho and Kansas if nominated? Isn't a better test how the candidates do in swing states where it will matter in the general?
With the contests remaining close for a longer than usual period of time, how significant do you think the 'money' question will become? Will a major differentiator be the ability to keep buying attention over the long haul?
And do you think foreign policy will continue to decline in importance through into the election itself, especially given the onset of recession?
With the contests remaining close for a longer than usual period of time, how significant do you think the 'money' question will become? Will a major differentiator be the ability to keep buying attention over the long haul?
And do you think foreign policy will continue to decline in importance through into the election itself, especially given the onset of recession?
You're gonna be up all night, Justin.
The New York Times' bottom-line on Democrats' results:
"Assuming the race remains close, what matters going forward is who gets the most pledged delegates."
Pledged Democrat delegates are only pledged to the FIRST vote at the national convention in Denver (including Edwards' delegates, explaining why he remains on the board).
1) What happens next? Apart from the necessary redistribution of ex-candidates' delegates, are/will "pledged" delegates able to/likely to defect?
2) What indicators -- pledged delegates, regional appeal, energy, money -- what markers strike you as most helpful ... and meaningful?
3) WHEN will the DNC decide whether or NOT to include (Illegal? Contested?) delegates from Michigan and Florida? Who decides and how? Is their ANY transparency within the DNC? Are rules changing as we move toward Denver?
* Thanks, by the way, for the Obama/Bill Bennett story ... back to McCain's old-school Republican base. Let's not forget that Barry Goldwater said "Every good Christian ought to line up to kick Jerry Falwell's ass" and stated -- forcefully and repeatedly -- that every woman had the right to an abortion. Mrs. Goldwater personally established the first Planned Parenthood in Arizona.
All the same, is not Huckabee proving himself a worthy knight, Sir Galahad the perfect and pure, mender of the sword? Will Huckabee share Galahad's fate?
This election is epic ... on both sides of the aisle.
The tightness of the Democratic race is already causing increased scrutiny of the Democrats', on it face, ludicrously un-democratic (small D that is) system of "Super Delegates." I'm thinking that, as a result, this will be the last Dem primary fought under such a system. Do you agree? And do you think this could slowly coalesce into a major theme over the coming weeks? Can you imagine the uproar if Obama wins more delegates than Clinton but loses because of her advantage as re: the party establishment?
First of all, thanks for writing this blog Justin, it gives me a perspective on the election that is "outside the box". It's a welcome diversion from traditional American reporting.
Here's the question: Do you think that news of the Clinton's lack of money right now could actually fuse a steady flow of cash into the campgaign from people who support her candidacy? It seems like the Clinton campaign was more than happy to make the news on this front.
Are there any specific plans outlined by the democratic candidates to overcome the current US recession
We've seen the references to the potential dream tickets of Clinton-Obama and Obama-Clinton. But who are the possible candidates for Clinton's choice of running mate apart from Obama. And, likewise, who could be Obama's running mates, apart from Clinton? What factors will each need to take into consideration in their choice of running mate? Would you expect balanced tickets? Thanks.
Justin,
When the results arrive, a shock wave hits, and you notice a moment of fear or of relief in a campaign organization.
What if any were your perceptions of both Clinton/Obama staffers as Super Tuesday realizations hit? Was there a perceptible shift in momentum? Or were the poker faces intact.
Hi Justin,
Given that we're regularly told how much the GOP hates McCain (not least by johnny mac's mum) will he get full access to party resources as nominee, or is it likely he'll be kept at arms length by certain party elders, in favour of a more conservative candidate whose had time to regroup for the election after this one - or is it naive to think the GOP would happily miss out on such a big prize as the presidency just because of a few stray senate votes?
A great deal has been said regarding the current position of Clinton and Obama and they would currently appear to be fairly balanced with Clinton perhaps holding the balance. What has not been discussed is how the remaining states are likely to vote; how these states' demographics and the respective candidate's current/projected popularity will play out? Furthermore, should the delegate count be even at the convention, which way will the party machine move (via the super-delegates) and could we be into 'hanging-chad- territory re Florida and Michigan?
It seems as if the media and pundits have made a grand issue of Romney's religion. That, technically, is not to be an isuue in campaigns for public office. But those of us in Bible Belt know the power of the Evangelicals who have not onlt a great hate of but also a great fear of Mormonism as whole. Unfortunately, their hate and fear is based in total ignorance....a deadly thing any way you cut it. To make things fair and to truly level the playing field, why hasn't the media made equal issues out of the religions of the other candidates as well and Obama in particular? There can be no double standard applied as the media opened this can of worms, did they not?
And the second question is: How much impact do the votes of the remaining states really have? We understand here in Virginia that we have the opportunity to be more than just a footnote when we vote next week. Do you think Virginia will back McCain or will the Moral Majority base here choose Huckabee?
Do you think that the saturation coverage of these primaries on 主播大秀 domestic broadcast media is justified? I have a feeling that our own election in 2005 received less coverage than this! Surely the run off in November between confirmed Rep and Dem candidates deserves coverage, but do you editors really think we 主播大秀 viewers want to hear yet more vox pops from Little Bend, Idaho (pop 472)?
There seems to be some vibes coming out about a combined Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama Democratic ticket being floated as a dream ticket. Given that there also seems to be extremely large blocks of people who would never vote for either person (especially Hilary) it seems to me it would be a nightmare ticket. Do people really think such a ticket is "electable"? Really, unless Obama wins the top spot, he should pull a JFK in 1956 and decline the VP candidate to keep him poised for the 2012 campaign!
Each one of the remaining 'main candidates' might seem to have 'a strike' against their candidacy; Senator McCain is old, Senator Clinton is a woman and Senator Obama is African-American. Do these distinctions have any real negative connotations amonsgt the mainstream US electorate and, if so, which candidate is the more handicapped?
What happens when a candidate at the end of all primaries does not get the required number of delegates?
Hi Justin, we regularly hear that the GOP has a formidable election machine; is this expected to fade with the dissolution of Bush's cabal or is it solidified in the Republican National Committee itself?
Either way, given that we're also told how much the party hates McCain (not least by johnny mac's mum) will he get full access to party resources as nominee, or is it likely he'll be kept at arms length by certain party elders, in favour of a more conservative candidate whose had time to regroup for the election after this one - or is it naive to think the GOP would happily miss out on such a big prize as the presidency just because of a few stray senate votes?
Dear Justin:
You have been all over the air arguing - because Clinton won New York, California and other "blue" states, while Obama's victories were in a number of traditionally "red" states - that we should have some "legitimate doubts" about Obama's viability should he become the nominee.
Are you seriously suggesting that voters in California and Massachusetts will abandon all hope and stay home on election day if Hillary isn't nominated? That they will run the risk of allowing another Republican administration into office rather than support the Democratic nominee?
Good grief.
I am a white woman voter of a certain age - a member of a group considered to be core Clinton supporters. What's more, I am one of the 400 or so women who graduated with Hillary Rodham from Wellesley College in 1969. I have every respect for Hillary - her intellect, her commitment, her energy, her patience, her courage. I admired how she dealt with the stresses of being First Lady, and am proud of the job she's doing as a U. S. Senator. I will gladly vote for her if she becomes the nominee.
But for the moment, I am pulling for Senator Obama, because of his thoughtfulness, his subtle grasp of difficult issues, his lack of political baggage and implacable enemies, and his commitment to helping us overcome the polarization - the "red-state/blue-state, me-state/you-state" thinking - that has caused so much trouble.
My question: What will it take for you to change your mind? Can you be persuaded to stop being part of the problem, to stop fomenting doubt about Obama's viability as a national candidate? Surely to God, 鈥渧iability鈥 is written all over him!
One question?
Gut feeling who's going to be the next potus?
The tightness of the Democratic race is already causing increased scrutiny of the Democrats', on it face, ludicrously un-democratic (small D that is) system of "Super Delegates." I'm thinking that, as a result, this will be the last Dem primary fought under such a system. Do you agree? And do you think this could slowly coalesce into a major theme over the coming weeks? Can you imagine the uproar if Obama wins more delegates than Clinton but loses because of her advantage as re: the party establishment?
Is it not regrettably true that by and large, C. Latinos who are Democrats are not just voting FOR Clinton, but AGAINST Obama?
the caucus sytem quite clearly favours Obama - possibly becuase his supporters are the most, the most intimidating and also the ones playing the race card.
Having spoken to someone who was in the caucus in Nevada he told me that many of Obama's supporters were trying to guilt-trip the uncommitted into voting for him - just becaus ehe was black. If they didn't they were accused of being racists.
The caucus sytem is in my opinion anti-democratic as it allows the bullies to intimidate.
Voting should be by secret ballot.
The sooner it happens the better in my opinion.
Black-white marriage non-existent? Heh. I think that stats disagree with that. It's lower than the rate of mixed marriages involving Latinos, certainly, but biracial couples are hardly unheard of.
Not that the question of race is decided for Obama. It will be very interesting to see what happens if he makes it to the general election. Racism in America is sort of an unknown undercurrent. Obama's getting a lot of support from white Democrats but I do think it will be an interesting test for America. I hope to be pleasantly surprised but I don't expect it.
I was confused by a 主播大秀 article quoting you as saying that Clinton's victories in NY and CA matter more than Obama's victories in smaller states, because they count for more in the general election. I don't understand your logic. First, if Obama were to win the nomination, Clinton's supporters in states like CA and NY would most likely go to him - just because he didn't win in the primary there doesn't mean he's unelectable there. But beyond that, in the electoral college, smaller states have power disproportionate to their size, so that NY and CA are at a relative disadvantage compared to ND and WV, for example. No single small state will make the difference, but the fact that Obama does well in the small-state, rural West and South bodes very well for him in the general election. I'm not sure Clinton could win enough small states, which have power disproportionate to their size in the electoral college, to win a victory. Big states are important, but the fact that Obama lost some of them to Clinton is no indication whatsoever that he would lose them to a Republican.
Race and sexism are in play in this election. In the Minnesota caucus I saw EVERY SINGLE black caucusgoer wearing an Obama '08 sticker. Some whites had Obama stickers as well, but you cannot tell me that all the black caucusgoers coincidentally think Obama's a better candidate on merit alone. If Obama's appeal to the black voters is that he's black and to the white voters that he's black and gives them a chance to prove how openminded they are, how well does that bode for Obama nationally when blacks comprised only 12.3% of the US population in the 2000 Census and there are large areas of the US where racism is strong enough that voters would never vote for a black?
Dear Justin:
You have been all over the air arguing - because Clinton won New York, California and other "blue" states, while Obama's victories were in a number of traditionally "red" states - that we should have some "legitimate doubts" about Obama's viability should he become the nominee.
Are you seriously suggesting that voters in California and Massachusetts will abandon all hope and stay home on election day if Hillary isn't nominated? That they will run the risk of allowing another Republican administration into office rather than support the Democratic nominee?
Good grief.
I am a white woman voter of a certain age - a member of a group considered to be core Clinton supporters. What's more, I am one of the 400 or so women who graduated with Hillary Rodham from Wellesley College in 1969. I have every respect for Hillary - her intellect, her commitment, her energy, her patience, her courage. I admired how she dealt with the stresses of being First Lady, and am proud of the job she's doing as a U. S. Senator. I will gladly vote for her if she becomes the nominee.
But for the moment, I am pulling for Senator Obama, because of his thoughtfulness, his subtle grasp of difficult issues, his lack of political baggage and implacable enemies, and his commitment to helping us overcome the polarization - the "red-state/blue-state, me-state/you-state" thinking - that has caused so much trouble.
My question: What will it take for you to change your mind? Can you be persuaded to stop being part of the problem, to stop fomenting doubt about Obama's viability as a national candidate? Surely to God, 鈥渧iability鈥 is written all over him!
Hi Justin, we regularly hear that the GOP has a formidable election machine; is this expected to fade with the dissolution of Bush's cabal or is it solidified in the Republican National Committee itself?
Either way, given that we're also told how much the party hates McCain (not least by johnny mac's mum) will he get full access to party resources as nominee, or is it likely he'll be kept at arms length by certain party elders, in favour of a more conservative candidate whose had time to regroup for the election after this one - or is it naive to think the GOP would happily miss out on such a big prize as the presidency just because of a few stray senate votes?
American pre-election overkill! please give us a rest.
??The BIG QUESTION to Justin Webb??
Hillary Clinton has raised $20 Millions for the Gen Election and can't use them in the run off with Barack Obama. Is she now using legal tricks, by claiming to loan herself $5 Millions. Money that I expect her to pay back to herself if she doesn't win the nomination. So is she using money that is allocated for the Gen Election to run against Barack Obama by legal tricks? If she is liable to pay back the donors, ignore my question.
The BIG QUESTION to Justin Webb
Hillary Clinton has raised $20 Millions for the Gen Election and can't use them in the run off with Barack Obama. Is she now using legal tricks, by claiming to loan herself $5 Millions. Money that I expect her to pay back to herself if she doesn't win the nomination. So is she using money that is allocated for the Gen Election to run against Barack Obama by legal tricks? If she is liable to pay back the donors, ignore my question.
Justin,
How do you think we should interpret the bookies' reaction to Super Tuesday?
Odds shortening for McCain (now the overall favorite) and Obama, but drifting for Clinton.
A weak signal, the verdict of the incorruptible market forces, a mere reflection of consumer demand, or just plain flocking behaviour?
Why do people think that a caucus is a good idea?
Why don't the Republicans go by the percentage the candidate wins in the primary/caucus instead of winner take all?
What is the big deal about Bloomberg? Is he still considered a sleeper candidate or is that discussion over now?
Probably too late for this question now, but I'll ask anyway:
Why is it that the one really qualified democrat Bill Richardson, didn't get any support? Out of all of the candidate's of either party he was probably the most qualified, and he got little support. I think he would have also gotten moderate Republican's support(me for one).
What was up with that?
Dear Justin,
Is it the case that Americans are now fed-up with the terms "white" and "black" to describe people who actually are very 'mixed' (I use that term reluctantly as I personally believe we are all mixtures of various ancestry and all 100% human). For example, the Observer newspaper had the profiles of six prominent"black" Americans a few weeks ago, but to me they all looked Creole or 'mixed'. I know there are political reasons for this but is there any sign in America that people have moved on from that dangerous and dubious (in my opinion) 'one drop' mentality? How much is it an issue in the presidential vote? I find it odd and depressing that Obama is only considered African-American or 'black' in some news reports. It's as if his other ancestry is ignored. I say this because in the UK there seems to be more acknowledgement of 'mixed' ancestry people.
Thanks
With Romney dropping out of the republican race and effectively handing the nomination to McCain, do you agree that the Republicans plan to steal a march on the Democrats by having McCain touring the country and abroad looking presidential while the Democratic Party is locked in a fight which could run for months. Surely the top party managers will be placing pressure on Clinton and Obama to cut a deal rather than slug their contest out till the convention? If they don't they risk having a unique candidate to run for President who will ultimately fail.
Wouldn't a Clinton/Obama ticket be almost guaranteed to win the big states in a general election?
Based on the two as the 'dream ticket' I think they would have a real shot of winning. So what if they don't really like each other?
If Obama as the younger candidate took the vice presidency ticket, he would still be only 54 if Hilary did 2 terms as President, and he ran for the Presidency in 2016, which would leave him still 17 years younger than McCain is now!
FYI the last time we had a floor fight at a Democratic convention was 1968. Robert Kennedy, who played Obama to Hubert Humphrey's Hillary, had just been assassinated and unlike the current campaign there was a third major player because Eugene McCarthy was still a viable candidate even with Kennedy alive and well in the race. Humphrey managed to scrape through at the convention, but with rioting outside and an overt effort by Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley to curtail the surge from the left. So Humphrey set out with no money and a bitterly divided party and the anti-war left did not trust him -- and indeed McCarthy went on holiday in the French Riviera in early September and came back after ten days announcing he would not make any endorsement at all. Somehow Humphrey managed to come back from 20 points down into a virtual tie; another two weeks and he'd have won.
In the Democrats' favor, this time they don't have the liability of being the governing party in a time of war and they aren't as deeply divided as in 1968.
Against the Democrats, they have a later convention than they did in 1968 that leaves very little time before the general election, and I don't think any of today's Democrats is as good a campaigner or as efficient with campaign funds as Hubert Humphrey was.
The wild card is whether they can sort this out before the convention. It's almost mathematically impossible for the voters to settle this, given the excessive number of "superdelegates" (elected and former elected Democratic politicians) and the Democrats' use of proportional representation in primary elections so it will come down to who the superdelegates decide to back. They can either behave like adults and get it done in advance, or have a messy "floor fight" (i.e. rancorous debate at the convention, like at an old-style Labour Party conference) that might replicate 1968.
So this year will either see the first woman, first african american or the oldest president in US history. My question is about McCain, do you think the US can really elect a 72 year old to be President? Given that if he served two terms he would be 80 years old. I understand his choice of vice president would be crucial, but can he really be elected by a strong projected youth vote?
Justin,
I am surprised you took Mitt Romney's absurd attack on European morality so lightly. I spend almost as much time in Europe as I do in America and yes, there is a huge difference in lifestyle and attitude. Europeans live in a relaxed, comfortable, safe and largely decriminalized, "cafe society". A place where --oh no!--
there are even topless beaches.
Mr Romney lives in a murderous, tightly wound, poorly educated, highly divided, freightened, religious nation years behind
Europe and Japan in culture and learning.
Are there still advantages to America ? Yes, and they are economic.
But let him take his "Morality" message to the NRA and the Far Right. Let them circle the wagons until paranoia leaves them stranded in their small religious compound.
When a candidate withdraws from the race for nomination, ie: Romney or Edwards, what happens to the delegates that they have already won? Do they become independent or are they transferred to the second place candidate in the relevant primaries via the Republican winner takes all or the Democratic sharing methods appropriately?
have a question-which really applies to all Candidates but I am thinking of McCain (due to his age with nothing personal against him; I would certainly prefer him to any other republicans)with Romney withdrawing,and Huckabee likely to do the same next week what happens if say,due to some unexpected event,McCain is unable to run for Office in November and has not selected a running mate.Would the whole process restart?Is there a precedent for this?Would Huckabee and Romney both run for President?I've looked everywhere...but I am hoping Mr. Webb, or my fellow readers may be able to help my pesimistic mind!
Here's one which might take courage for you to answer straightforwardly, Mr Webb:
|| Honestly, if you were to specify a reason
|| to not vote for McCain, Romney, Huckabee,
|| Clinton and Obama--what would it be in each case?
I'd like to suggest that, in the US general election, independent voters are more likely than not to vote for change, i.e., for the Democratic candidate. Independents who are against the seemingly endless war in Iraq will not vote for the Republican candidate. Independents who are concerned about the huge deficits run up by the Bush administration are more likely vote against McCain, who cannot reduce the deficit without reducing military spending and the US presence in Iraq, something he has pledged not to do. The desire of most independents for change will override any misgivings they may have about either Clinton or Obama. The youth vote is another matter. If Clinton wins the nomination she will need Obama to keep young voters engaged, and it's in Obama's interest to do so. After all, he wants a Democrat in the Oval Office, too. Of course, a Clinton/Obama alliance - no matter who heads the ticket - would be well positioned to make history in November.
As an American who has lived in many parts of the world and has found things to learn from and admire in many cultures, I'd like to thank Douglas James for bashing America with the same blunt instrument that Mitt Romney used to bash Europe.
Hello Justin,
Why are people so concerned about a candidate having experience? Surely Bush proves that can mean repeating the same mistakes over and over again.
Also, (sorry) we hear a lot of women support Hillary. Obiously that is because she is a woman but most of my friends can't understand why she didn't dump adulterous Bill and wouldn't vote for a woman that didn't have the guts to do it. Is it ever mentioned.
Who are the primary funders of Clinton and Obamas Campaigns. What can we learn about them from their backers?
Hi Justin
Thanks for an informative and entertaining blog.
My question is this. Why so much fuss about whether McCain will be able to pacify his conservative critics? Versus Obama or Hillary, what choice do they have? Their fear of a liberal in office will get them to the polls and direct their vote I suspect. Wouldnt McCains efforts more likely yield a Nov. win if he concentrated on grabbing the independents from a potential Obama run, and ignore the intolerant idealogs on the right? Trying to please them risks alienating moderates.
PS. Just a note on McCains age. His Mom is spry and quick witted and in her mid nineties.
Hi Justin
Thanks for an informative and entertaining blog.
My question is this. Why so much fuss about whether McCain will be able to pacify his conservative critics? Versus Obama or Hillary, what choice do they have? Their fear of a liberal in office will get them to the polls and direct their vote I suspect. Wouldnt McCains efforts more likely yield a Nov. win if he concentrated on grabbing the independents from a potential Obama run, and ignore the intolerant idealogs on the right? Trying to please them risks alienating moderates.
PS. Just a note on McCains age. His Mom is spry and quick witted and in her mid nineties.
Justin,
I live in the US--but am a British citizen. I was struck by both Romney's and Giuliani's concession/withdrawal speeches, in that they both intimated directly or indirectly, that a Democrat win in November would be a "victory for terrorists."
Obviously, the Republicans need to address national security in their primaries, in order to get their base to the polls.
Nationwide however--as far as i can gather from the media here--the Iraq war has become deeply unpopular, and the Democrats debate about how to get out of Iraq has picked up resonance. My impression for example, is that moderate Democrats--at least those i know--would settle for Mcain-were it not for his hawkishness on Iraq.
Do you think that the Republicans standard (at least since 9/11) rhetoric about terrorism and the Democrats will damage them in the long term lead-in to November, and perhaps in the election itself?
Can you tell me how much in total all the candidates have spent and predict a total for the whole process? What percentage is this of the US GDP? How does this compare with what the US spends on state funded healthcare, not private.Thanks
F
Warks, UK
Hi Justin,
Great coverage.
Can you give us an insight into the Democrat canidates views on how they would tackle the economy, health care and iraq.
Also Obama talks about 'change' but how different overall are his policies from Hillary or is it more an emphasis on change as in his background (ie. non-Washington) rather than change in policy ?
Dear Justin,
Thank you for this blog and your coverage of the race. My question relates to campaign fund raising.
There has been a lot of talk on how much money each candidate (esp. on the Democratic side) has raised and the effects of that money on the health and stamina of their campaign.
Since at this stage, all fund raising is carried out by the candidates and in their own name (as opposed to by the party as is often done after the convention), does it mean that, hypothetically speaking, if Obama or Clinton chose to drop out from the race at this moment, they would personally be a few million dollars richer?
What is a "Delegate?" What makes someone a Delegate and the other a Super Delegate? And why is it rumoured that Hillary has more Super Delegates than Obama? Please I need some explanation.
CAMILLA,FREETOWN,SIERRElEONE.
you may have gone native ('i much prefer living here') but how can you seriously believe americans, faced with a choice between mccain and obama, would elect the black candidate? i've seen no evidence that US voters are anywhere near ready for that sea change, whatever the sniping against hilary.
Justin,
Do you think that it is likely that the DNC would restore Michigan and Florida's delgates for the convention? Would they be more likely to do this to avoid a brokered convention? Would this be accepted or seen as horribly unfair, since Sen. Obama'a name was not even on the Michigan primary ballot, and he wasn't allowed to campaign in Florida?
This is a thoughtful addition to your blog ... Thank you, once again, for engaging us.
The New York Times' bottom-line on Democrats' results:
"Assuming the race remains close, what matters going forward is who gets the most pledged delegates."
Pledged Democrat delegates are only pledged to the FIRST vote at the national convention in Denver (including Edwards' delegates, explaining why he remains on the board).
1) What happens next? Apart from the necessary redistribution of ex-candidates' delegates, are/will "pledged" delegates able to/likely to defect?
2) What indicators -- pledged delegates, regional appeal, energy, money -- what markers strike you as most helpful ... and meaningful?
3) WHEN will the DNC decide whether or NOT to include (Illegal? Contested?) delegates from Michigan and Florida? Who decides and how? Is their ANY transparency within the DNC? Are rules changing as we move toward Denver?
What happens to the convention delegates for candidates who have left the race, such as Mitt Romney's? Can they vote how they please at the convention or do the candidates have a say in how they vote?
I'm curious to know if anyone has done a poll to find out how many of the folks who have voted for Obama have done so as a no vote for Clinton , and if these same voters are prepared to vote for an African-American come general election time .
thanks
Do you think a long drawn-out contest for the Democratic nomination will jeopardise the eventual Democratic candidate's chances of winning the presidency? Should Senator Clinton or Senator Obama step aside in the interests of the "greater good". If so, when? Do you think either of them will?
I just read that Obama won the caucus in the US Virgin Islands. I'm a yank and I recently moved to Puerto Rico, where I've learned that by living in one of the US colonies, and making it my permanent residence, I give up my write to vote in the US Presidential elections. Why is it that the US Virgin Islanders can vote in the US Presidential elections but the Puerto Ricans can't?
Thanks!
what is the maximum exspeniditure candidates are allowed to make?
Why is your website so balky? (many reades have commented on how difficult it is to submit a comment, it always freezes up)
What will Bill Clinton's title be if his wife becomes President ? The First Gentleman?
Justin
How much do you think voters in the Primaries and Caucuses are now thinking to the election in November? Are Democrats now being influenced by the fact that McCain is the almost certain opponent? Obama v McCain just sounds better. It would be a real choice. In a Clinton v McCain contest which one would be the candidate of change? Also with McCain in position Democrats ideally want to roll their candidate into place on a surge of support giving momentum into November. It now feels like only Obama can do this.
What do you think?
Do you think any of the candidates will consider closing down the private Federal Reserve Bank, and use our constitutional right to create and distribute our own money, and to set interest rates? 5 past Presidents including Lincoln and Jackson, in the same financial circumstances we now endure, employed this response with immediate and gratifying results. They paid off the national debt in VERY short periods of time, brought prosperity back to the masses, and in some cases were able to do away with income taxes, relying instead on sales tax and excise taxes. I found this info on the internet film, "The Money Masters" at : If you watch it take along a six pack and a couple of boxes of Kentucky fried, as it is 3.5 hours long. It seems to be the equivalent of a semester or two of The Financial History of Western Europe and America. Personally, I think we should close the Fed down tomorrow.
Cheers then, Victor Compton (near Cherbourg in France
Mr. Webb,
Once again...your ridicule of America. You do not deserve to live here, nor be writing your opinion's of American's, their way of life OR their politics.
Being a New Yorker who travels to England quite often..have you not noticed where many of your products are coming from??? I just returned and found it QUITE difficult to find anything made in the UK.
Yet..you ridicule what is sold in New York.
This is something that at one time you were staying a bit away from, your sarcasium. You started to sound intelligent. Who you are though keep's coming through. I imagine you can not help it.
Please understand, you can not make yourself or your country bigger with your ridicule. You make both smaller. Jealousy is behind all forms of ridicule. When I am in England I do my very best to point out who and what you are. I would suggest you take a trip back "home" so you know what you are talking about.
Smarten up.
Colleen Benedict NEW YORK
Why is Obama touted as the Black American candidate when in reality he is a bi-racial one? Is he ashamed of his mixed parentage or is he worried that being half white would not bring out the black voters
Dear Justin,
I have read the coverage of the 主播大秀 with great interest and in particular about the potentially pivotal position of the 'super-delegates'. As a believer in One Man, One Vote, and in the USA's proud boast to be the best democracy in the world, I am shocked to read that the outcome of the world's most important democratic contest (for we are all affected by US politics in more ways than most of us appreciate), may be decided by a small group of (largely) unelected party officials. This reminds me of Labour party conferences of old, and block votes, which were dismissed by Tony Blair as antidemocratic. How right he was! And therefore how distressing to find that the US election could be manipulated by King (or Queen) makers in smoke filled rooms! I am not a naive person, but this is surely counter intuitive when dealing with the most important democratic contest possible. Do you believe that this is effective politics, of the sort envisaged by the Founding Fathers, with checks and balances to prevent abuses, or is this simply a system in decline, corrupted by the political insider - a long unworthy tradition from ancient Greece, to Rome, to Machiavelli and even to the present day? Or perhaps I am just too cynical to take a realistic, realpolitik view.
what happens to Romney's delegates. can he "give" them to Huckabee, and if so, wouldn't that make Huckabee's numbers look mighty scary to McCain.
Is it possible to vote in both Democratic and Republican primaries in a particular state? If not, how do parties prevent this from happening?
An exciting election bringing many surprises. The big queestion...if America decides it does not want a black president or a female president could McCain get in almost by default?
Speaking to my American colleagues on a recent business trip to Chicago (they and I are in our mid-20s), I made what seemed to me (perhaps wrongly) to be a fair comparison between Obama now and Blair c. 1997. Both have progressed on the back of apparently strong public support for vague abstract concepts. In Blair's case it was largely "modernisation" and with Obama it appears to be mainly "change". I asked my colleagues whether they felt Obama would really change anything or merely end up, like Blair, with a 1-2 year honeymoon (at best), and find that, politics being what it is, change proves impossible in practice, with the usual (and ancient) divisions and practical problems of government reasserting themselves. Do you think the comparison with Blair is a fair one?
Thanks,
James
Possibly I have missed it in all the splendid cover you have been giving but my question sort of goes right back to basics :-
Just HOW do voters in these election vote? I am a bit confused
At the voting booths do we have :-
situation 1
A form with candidates from both parties on. Anyone goes in to vote and marks their favourite in each party
situation 2
you go in , say which party you support , are give a form with candidates for that party and mark your preference
Somehow , out of something like this , one arrives at mandated 'Candidates' - but I am not sure how the votes translate into these nominees - or what checks are made to ensure they vote as required ?
I can well appreciate some of the other 'variables' you have mentioned - but these 'basics' have somehow not registered in my brain!
Many thanks for your good work.
Roger Crabb
I am very concerned that Obama will be shot - are you?
Thanks to 主播大秀 this is one of the first times Super Delegates has emerged-
Question do the Republicans have such a devious method for making the electoral process such a sham or do the wait until after the election?
i was wondering if you could explain the voting system used in the American election,it rather confusing?
The world is watching America,at this time of elections 2008; basically, to see if The so-called civilized world is ready to join WITH the global community. the question is then why is it that the main stream media in such a panic over Obama getting ahead, after his 8 victories several columnists prominent sought to boost Clinton by asking rhetorical questions such as 'What can Hillary do to come back?' why not the balanced question 'What can Barack do to stay ahead?. MSNBC, CNN, 主播大秀, NYTIMES LATIMES have all in one way or the other displayed panic after the 8 victories. it simply shows the depth the status quo has penetrated our lives (or attempted to).
Justin,
How, by the definition of a democracy, does it square that many senior positions in the Government are selected by the incoming President? eg Defence, State and Law etc., etc.,
Seems to someone coming from the commonwealth, that this puts unelected persons in government!
The track record of the years has not been good for a lot of these appointee's - and the citizens are saddled with appointee's whose association with the President overrule the individual's ability.