Super Tuesday: the aftermath
I get some lovely emails sometimes. Like this one, which arrived a couple of days ago while I was in Chicago.
鈥淲hy are you covering the US primaries in such detail?鈥 it asked. 鈥淭hey are just not relevant to a UK audience. Why do we care? I have just had to turn off The World Tonight because I simply couldn't take any more of it. It was either that or die of boredom.鈥
Well, excuse me. Not relevant? Why do we care? Maybe because it matters who runs the most powerful country in the world. Because we really need to understand who the next US president will be, and how he or she got to the White House. Because to understand the US, we need to understand what US voters think, about their country and the world.
Not relevant if for the first time in the country鈥檚 history the US president is a woman? Or a black man? Does anyone really not care about the politics of the country that exerts greater military and economic influence than any other power on earth?
Sorry, but to me it seems obvious. Nor do I accept the criticism that we 鈥渙nly鈥 cover US elections. You may recall that I wrote about the Serbian elections last week 鈥 and Ray Furlong was in Belgrade to report on the outcome. Next month, I鈥檒l be in Madrid to report on the Spanish elections. I reckon that I must have reported on elections in more than a dozen different countries over the past few years, from Iran to Zimbabwe, Israel to Russia.
So now I鈥檓 writing this on the plane back to London, after Super Tuesday primaries which told us quite a lot about American voters, and about the leading candidates, but which still didn鈥檛 give us a definitive answer on who the Democratic party candidate will be in November.
Mind you, as I wrote in my blog last Monday (before the Super Tuesday primaries and before his rival Mitt Romney 鈥渟uspended鈥 his campaign), John McCain is now certain to be the Republican party candidate. He鈥檚 a former Vietnam prisoner of war, tough on security, more moderate on social and economic issues. He voted against President Bush on tax cuts, and co-sponsored a proposal with arch-liberal Edward Kennedy on granting an amnesty to illegal immigrants. He is deeply distrusted by the conservative wing of his party, who call him a RINO (Republican In Name Only). Some even say they鈥檇 rather see Hillary Clinton in the White House than Senator McCain.
As for Mrs Clinton and Barack Obama, it鈥檚 neck and neck. She does better among women, the less well-off and older and Hispanic voters; he does better among the young, the educated, the better-off, and black voters. He seems to have the greater momentum and more campaign cash; but she has a formidable campaign team and either of them could still emerge as the eventual nominee.
As for what will happen in November, I鈥檓 now prepared to stick my neck out: I think the Democrats will win. It鈥檚 a little remarked upon fact that Senator McCain won most of his victories on Tuesday in states (six out of nine) where in the last three presidential elections, the Democrats have won. So they may have helped him win the nomination, but they probably won鈥檛 help him win the White House.
If I鈥檓 right, that means the next US president will be either a woman, or black. I reckon that鈥檚 pretty interesting. So is this: David Frum, a leading conservative commentator and former speech writer for George Bush, wrote in the today: 鈥淭he conservative ascendancy in American politics is coming to an end 鈥 the stage has been set for the boldest and most dramatic redirection of US politics since (Ronald) Reagan鈥檚 first year in office.鈥 Relevant? I think so 鈥
At this point, I wouldn't risk any money on betting who the winner will be either among the Democrats or in the general election. Anything can happen. I'd add to your demographic analysis that among those who voted in the Democratic primaries and caucuses, Obama did well among white males, Clinton did well among Asians. I think a brokered convention would lead to a Clinton nomination. As a result, there could be some rioting in major cities, something we haven't seen on a large scale for decades. If there is another attack on the US by terrorists or if there is another security trouble spot which flares such as Iran between now and election day, that could favor McCain. Obama seems weak and inexperienced.
I have to wonder if the people in the Iraqi government know what is at stake for them in this election. Should Obama or even Clinton win, that could be their epitaph. They will have less than three months to get out of Iraq permanently or face the insurgents on both sides alone as traitors.
Complain about this postWhen I did my Politics A'level we were asked the question what does it take to be a US President? In amongst all the rules we were also taught about informal requirements of them being male and white. I think it is pretty interesting that is going to change...
Complain about this postI think the point is well made that they are relevant - what is more difficult to argue is the amount of the coverage, when we are something like 260+ days from Election Day. The coverage of the elections from the Start to Super Tuesday phase has already lasted as long as a British General Election.
And the results have been inconclusive for the Democrats, and have already resulted in a couple of the Republican candidates, on whom much speculation was expended, dropping out. I think your coverage is among the best, but I think we all need to remember that it is a marathon, not a sprint.
I am not totally convinced that who becomes US President makes a huge amount of difference - despite their protestations, the role is so 'in hock' to special interests and corporate America that no one really radical could do the top job.
Remember, Hillary Clinton is the one who failed to deliver Universal Health Care. Could Barack Obama do better ? We might like to think so, but the track record of big business in de-railing any one or anything which would affect them too much doesn't make me think anything much is going to change in the US of A after Election Day.
Complain about this postIt鈥檚 not relevant to me whether the Democrat candidate is a woman or black.
What should be relevant are policies, which in both Clinton鈥檚 and Obama鈥檚 case are 鈥渢alking loud and saying nothing.鈥
Let鈥檚 see if any of you hacks can corner Zbigniew Brzezinski and ask him what kind of foreign policy advice he鈥檚 giving Obama? Or what is the beef with Robert Malley either being rumoured to be a Middle East advisor or is it Dan Shapiro?
Do us a favour and get a scoop on Dan Shapiro as us who watch Democracy Now and read Allan Nairn鈥檚 blog know about the rest.
Now that鈥檚 what I call journalism.
Complain about this postHaving followed US elections for longer than I care to remember I do have a problem with your suggestion that "we need to know what the voters think". Are you seriously proposing that there is much thinking envolved in this peculiar way of electing a president?
Do Americans actually realise that there is more to the world than their own country when they elect a powerful president or that we await their election each time with trepidation?
The whole world at the mercy of the belly-thinkers of America. Good luck to the rest of us!
Complain about this postFor once the US elections are fascinating - if completely barmy: A BA in Politics and a MA in History and I REALLY don't get caucuses. I feel in need of a 'the Sun' style diagram of how US presidents get elected. I think that's part of the reason why listeners feel mystified about why all you journalists are there....
Complain about this postHowever, I strongly agree with another of your commenters that the big problem is that none of the contenders say anything at all of any substance. Our standing joke at home at the moment is mimicry of Obama saying stridently: America needs change and I will bring change by errr...changing things. Give me Homer Simpson any day.