![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
davywavy"So", he said to me. "Who do you reckon will win the American elections?"
"Barack Obama. Definitely."
"No way. John McCain will."
"Why do you say that?" I said.
"He's the best candidate", he replied.
I looked at him, confused. "What on Earth has that got to do with it?"
I've stayed off the topic of the US elections on LJ. It's not that I haven't had a lot to say about the subject - far from it. I'd've liked to mention that I felt John McCain's attempts to project dignity and gravitas were being undermined by the fact he sounds like Elmer Fudd*. Then there's pointing out that if Sarah Palin knows about international affairs because she can see Russia from her loft window then I'm a fantastic lover because my next door neighbours keep having noisy sex**.
Normally I'm keen to talk politics. I view political commentary as being like swimming - I may not be all that good at it, but I do enjoy jumping in, splashing around a bit and generally getting in everyone else's way.
The reason I've maintained a public silence about this contest is because it has become so viciously partisan that expressing an opinion - any opinion - about what is going on lays you open to one of the hard-of-thinking brigade to fix you with a stern glare and say "Why do you hate America?", and my reply - "The same reason I didn't get on with my old housemate, an unfaithful pathological liar with an eating disorder" - doesn't help the quality of debate either.
That's not to say I haven't discussed the subject with people like![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
token_limey and mrmmarc, but even then I've stayed off topics like policies and agendas and stuck to a single point; and that is:
Barack Obama is going to win.
I've been saying it since December/January. Kudos tomrmmarc who called Obama as a contender over 18 months ago and the blogger on politicalbetting.com who took 50/1 odds on Obama back in 2006 for calling it sooner, but as soon as I looked at the things which actually decide elections, I was pretty certain in my views.
There's an old saying that candidates don't win elections but governments lose them, and in the main I think this true. The only British elections I can think of in which manifesto promises probably swung things were 1945, when Labour's promises undoubtedly won things, and in 1983, when Labour's manifesto seemed to comprise largely of a big picture of Michael Foot weeing on the electorate with the caption "There'll be plenty more of this when we're elected."
Let's face it; if policies, manifesto promises and 'The Best Candidate' won elections, then Tony Blair would have been gored to death by an escaped rhinocerous in 1996.
Instead, the more I look at elections, it seems that they are won by two things: Money and the will of the mob.
The original reason I called Obama was because the best funded candidate has won more than 90% of US presidential elections, so the force of historical precedent was on my side. This opinion was backed by the betting odds, which have proven to be more reliable indicators of the outcome of elections than opinion polls in every single election since records began, so once again I felt that precedent was on my side and went round making bets wherever I could get them. To my dismay I learned too late my brother was handing out bets that McCain was going to win and there's little sweeter than taking money out of my brother's wallet, but I doubt he's still making odds.
Given that bookmakers Paddypower have now paid out on Obama more than 2 weeks before the polls, they must have calculated that the odds of them being wrong at this stage outweigh the value of the publicity they get from taking this step, and if there's one thing bookmakers are good at it's calculating the odds.
As for the will of the mob, there seems to be a point at which the people look at their rulers and say: We've had quite enough of you. We saw it in the UK in 1979 and 1997, and we're seeing it again now. This process seems to have little to do with competence or policies and is more like the 'bean king' of the ancient Celts. The Celts had a ceremony in which they would ceremonially elect a King who was entitled to ram his snout firmly into the trough, taking the very best that the people produced for a year or more until one day they would rise up, eviscerate him, and scatter his blood on the land before starting the cycle again. The electoral process just seems to be to be a modern equivalent of this and it seemed to me that the cycle had reached it's end point in the US. McCain's attempts to brand himself as a maverick who wasn't like everyone else in his party were a reflection of this, but I didn't feel it was going to be enough.
It's utterly irrelevant which candidate I - or you - happen to think is the better one. The wierd thing about the mob as defined by the Greek and Roman rhetoricians more than two thousand years ago is that you are never a member. It's that faceless morass of humanity made up of other people and the art of politics is mostly not to lead them, but to judge their mood and play to it, and policies play second fiddle to this process. However, if people want to know which candidate I actually think would make the better president, and why, I'll make another post on that subject another time.
*"I...have a wong and honourwable histowy...of hunting wabbits."
**And, once again like Russia and Sarah Palin, they never ask me to join in.
"Barack Obama. Definitely."
"No way. John McCain will."
"Why do you say that?" I said.
"He's the best candidate", he replied.
I looked at him, confused. "What on Earth has that got to do with it?"
I've stayed off the topic of the US elections on LJ. It's not that I haven't had a lot to say about the subject - far from it. I'd've liked to mention that I felt John McCain's attempts to project dignity and gravitas were being undermined by the fact he sounds like Elmer Fudd*. Then there's pointing out that if Sarah Palin knows about international affairs because she can see Russia from her loft window then I'm a fantastic lover because my next door neighbours keep having noisy sex**.
Normally I'm keen to talk politics. I view political commentary as being like swimming - I may not be all that good at it, but I do enjoy jumping in, splashing around a bit and generally getting in everyone else's way.
The reason I've maintained a public silence about this contest is because it has become so viciously partisan that expressing an opinion - any opinion - about what is going on lays you open to one of the hard-of-thinking brigade to fix you with a stern glare and say "Why do you hate America?", and my reply - "The same reason I didn't get on with my old housemate, an unfaithful pathological liar with an eating disorder" - doesn't help the quality of debate either.
That's not to say I haven't discussed the subject with people like
token_limey and mrmmarc, but even then I've stayed off topics like policies and agendas and stuck to a single point; and that is:Barack Obama is going to win.
I've been saying it since December/January. Kudos to
mrmmarc who called Obama as a contender over 18 months ago and the blogger on politicalbetting.com who took 50/1 odds on Obama back in 2006 for calling it sooner, but as soon as I looked at the things which actually decide elections, I was pretty certain in my views. There's an old saying that candidates don't win elections but governments lose them, and in the main I think this true. The only British elections I can think of in which manifesto promises probably swung things were 1945, when Labour's promises undoubtedly won things, and in 1983, when Labour's manifesto seemed to comprise largely of a big picture of Michael Foot weeing on the electorate with the caption "There'll be plenty more of this when we're elected."
Let's face it; if policies, manifesto promises and 'The Best Candidate' won elections, then Tony Blair would have been gored to death by an escaped rhinocerous in 1996.
Instead, the more I look at elections, it seems that they are won by two things: Money and the will of the mob.
The original reason I called Obama was because the best funded candidate has won more than 90% of US presidential elections, so the force of historical precedent was on my side. This opinion was backed by the betting odds, which have proven to be more reliable indicators of the outcome of elections than opinion polls in every single election since records began, so once again I felt that precedent was on my side and went round making bets wherever I could get them. To my dismay I learned too late my brother was handing out bets that McCain was going to win and there's little sweeter than taking money out of my brother's wallet, but I doubt he's still making odds.
Given that bookmakers Paddypower have now paid out on Obama more than 2 weeks before the polls, they must have calculated that the odds of them being wrong at this stage outweigh the value of the publicity they get from taking this step, and if there's one thing bookmakers are good at it's calculating the odds.
As for the will of the mob, there seems to be a point at which the people look at their rulers and say: We've had quite enough of you. We saw it in the UK in 1979 and 1997, and we're seeing it again now. This process seems to have little to do with competence or policies and is more like the 'bean king' of the ancient Celts. The Celts had a ceremony in which they would ceremonially elect a King who was entitled to ram his snout firmly into the trough, taking the very best that the people produced for a year or more until one day they would rise up, eviscerate him, and scatter his blood on the land before starting the cycle again. The electoral process just seems to be to be a modern equivalent of this and it seemed to me that the cycle had reached it's end point in the US. McCain's attempts to brand himself as a maverick who wasn't like everyone else in his party were a reflection of this, but I didn't feel it was going to be enough.
It's utterly irrelevant which candidate I - or you - happen to think is the better one. The wierd thing about the mob as defined by the Greek and Roman rhetoricians more than two thousand years ago is that you are never a member. It's that faceless morass of humanity made up of other people and the art of politics is mostly not to lead them, but to judge their mood and play to it, and policies play second fiddle to this process. However, if people want to know which candidate I actually think would make the better president, and why, I'll make another post on that subject another time.
*"I...have a wong and honourwable histowy...of hunting wabbits."
**And, once again like Russia and Sarah Palin, they never ask me to join in.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-10-21 10:20 am (UTC)http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7675927.stm
no subject
Date: 2008-10-21 01:40 pm (UTC)I'd rather like to see a tradition like this over here.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-21 02:43 pm (UTC)On the other hand I'm sure he is having a laugh by reinstating Mandy
no subject
Date: 2008-10-21 11:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-21 01:37 pm (UTC)D
That said, there is always the Bradley effect
no subject
Date: 2008-10-21 01:39 pm (UTC)At time of writing, the only chance I can see of McCain swinging it is if something I half-expected to see in 2004 happens, and it turns out that the CIA have had bin Laden in a cage somewhere waiting to 'capture' him at an expediant moment. Much like the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979.
"Why do you hate America?"
Date: 2008-10-21 01:44 pm (UTC)re: "if people want to know which candidate I actually think would make the better president, and why, I'll make another post on that subject another time." - do go on. I'd appreciate thoughtful conservative commentary that doesn't degenerate into flag-wrapped steaming turds that allege insufficient patriotism as the 'Right' commentary here seems only able to provide. :-)
Re: "Why do you hate America?"
Date: 2008-10-21 01:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-21 03:47 pm (UTC)*Stern but compassionate glare*
Date: 2008-10-21 04:01 pm (UTC)Re: *Stern but compassionate glare*
Date: 2008-10-21 05:07 pm (UTC)Re: *Stern but compassionate glare*
Date: 2008-10-21 05:14 pm (UTC)Re: *Stern but compassionate glare*
Date: 2008-10-21 05:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-21 05:48 pm (UTC)The power of the mob indeed!
Its that moment- that absolute certain moment when a switch is pulled and everyone goes... 'Enough'.
Mostly you can see it coming. Not always.
Kinnock had won. EVERYONE was sure of it.
But another switch was pulled and the big 'never vote Tory again' switch was delayed for a few years...
Blair should NEVER have won his last election. Never. He lied, he cheated, he was so fake it hurt... an he STILL won.
Its like now- everyone Knows the Conservatives are going to win the next election... right?
Right?
Why are they panicking?
Its a fickle and mutable thing this mob.
I have long agreed with you over the 'Time gentlemen please...' ruling (Bloomburg's attempts at a third term in NYC are rightly causing alarm bells eeven admist his own supporters), but I also know that occsionally the mob will issue a stay of execuition... and remember the mob can also demand that NOTHING changes.
Look at Japan and its democracy.
The LACK of change is a sign of the mob as well.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-22 08:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-22 08:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-22 03:58 pm (UTC)it just struck me...
Date: 2008-10-22 03:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-27 09:49 am (UTC)The "Whoevers" who really run the world decided Obama was going to be the first black American president a long time ago.
In a country where the shine of your teeth is the deciding factor in an election McCain was obviously selected to lose. Compare the two. Obama is a slim, compact,elegant, male shape who looks good in a suit. John McCain is a roly poly with arms that are just not in proportion. He always appears to me to be a Muppet whith arms controlled by sticks.And yes the voice completes the picture. When it appeared breifly that he may actually get some support they bought in Ms Palin. A rabid,mad eyed fundamentalist who makes Binladen look like captain Mainwaring and so totally politically inept she instantly became a comedy hit.
Policies are unimportant, what matters is who do you want to watch on TV.