UK preferences for US President (Political!)

[oggbashan]

In a poll published in The Times today a representative group of UK citizens were asked who they would choose to be the next US President.

They were asked who they would choose as the Democrat nominee:

Obama 48%
Clinton 35%

They were then asked who they would choose to be President between Clinton and McCain:

Clinton 56%
McCain 20%

Or between Obama and McCain:

Obama 54%
McCain 19%

I think this poll says more about the UK than about the US Presidential Contest.

Og

 

[sr71plt]

In a poll published in The Times today a representative group of UK citizens were asked who they would choose to be the next US President.

They were asked who they would choose as the Democrat nominee:

Obama 48%
Clinton 35%

They were then asked who they would choose to be President between Clinton and McCain:

Clinton 56%
McCain 20%

Or between Obama and McCain:

Obama 54%
McCain 19%

I think this poll says more about the UK than about the US Presidential Contest.

Og

It might be pretty close to how polls in the United States would be answered now, too (although maybe not as close to how Americans would actually vote).

It surprises me. From a European perspective, I would have guessed that Clinton would have done better. Fewer unknowns; more stability. McCain's Waterloo would be his stand on Iraq.

 

[oggbashan]

...It surprises me. From a European perspective, I would have guessed that Clinton would have done better. Fewer unknowns; more stability. McCain's Waterloo would be his stand on Iraq.

I wouldn't know from a European perspective.

From the UK I think that Clinton suffers because we don't like political families. We expect our politicians to be judged on their own merits, not on membership of a family or clan. For example, Winston Churchill was considered unelectable as a leader for years because he was the son of a famous father (and related to too many of the nobility).

Perhaps also Hilary Clinton sounds and looks too much like Margaret Thatcher. Margaret Thatcher's name and style still resonates throughout UK politics. She was either loved or hated. Very few people were or are indifferent to her legacy.

Og

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Anybody but Hillary.

 

[fifty5]

In a poll published in The Times today a representative group of UK citizens were asked who they would choose to be the next US President.

They were asked who they would choose as the Democrat nominee:

Obama 48%
Clinton 35%

They were then asked who they would choose to be President between Clinton and McCain:

Clinton 56%
McCain 20%

Or between Obama and McCain:

Obama 54%
McCain 19%

I think this poll says more about the UK than about the US Presidential Contest.

Og

Interesting that Clinton gets a (slightly) higher turn-out while Obama gets a (slightly) higher proportion of the vote against McCain.

Even more interesting is that McCain is the lay figure here. Is that due to a lack of interest in McCain - or just an artefact of the question(s) asked by the pollsters?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

And if the Democratic Party had anything to say about it they would let everyone in the world vote for the US President.

 

[sr71plt]

I wouldn't know from a European perspective.

From the UK I think that Clinton suffers because we don't like political families. We expect our politicians to be judged on their own merits, not on membership of a family or clan. For example, Winston Churchill was considered unelectable as a leader for years because he was the son of a famous father (and related to too many of the nobility).

Perhaps also Hilary Clinton sounds and looks too much like Margaret Thatcher. Margaret Thatcher's name and style still resonates throughout UK politics. She was either loved or hated. Very few people were or are indifferent to her legacy.

Og

Ah, I can see the Margaret Thatcher comparison. I can also see the wishful thinking of preferring the unknown (Obama) to the better known (Clinton, McCain), although that often has a nasty tail to it.

Churchill is probably a good example--regardless of being unelectable for so long (and vilified for some of his early snafus), when elected, he did the job and probably has the best press of any UK PM.

I think those outside the States (and inside, as well), don't completely understand the vast differences in what being a political family means in the States. The Byrds, Kennedy/Gores, Rockefellers, Bushes, and Landreaus are one thing in an old-style close-knit family cronyism, but these are a little different from the Wallaces, Romneys, and Bayhs, for instance, and miles away from the Clintons. Neither of the Clintons has a political dynasty background, and Hillary is by no means a tagalong--she's always been the more political of the two; she's not stepping into any legacy other than the convenience of pretty clever preplanned positioning on her part. I'd find it hard to envision that the Clintons are grooming Chelsea for anything, so, again, I don't see the "political family" concept working here in any sense of the term as it has with the Kennedy/Gores. (I lump them together, because they are one extended family.)

 

[Belegon]

And if the Democratic Party had anything to say about it they would let everyone in the world vote for the US President.

Oh, whatever.

That kind of ridiculous statement is exactly the kind of political idiocy that many see Obama as a change from...

It's not about an issue or making a real point... it's just defaming distraction. Hopefully, that time has passed... we shall see.

 

[oggbashan]

Interesting that Clinton gets a (slightly) higher turn-out while Obama gets a (slightly) higher proportion of the vote against McCain.

Even more interesting is that McCain is the lay figure here. Is that due to a lack of interest in McCain - or just an artefact of the question(s) asked by the pollsters?

It may be that McCain has had fewer column inches in the UK in recent weeks. Clinton and Obama have been in UK newspapers and on TV news almost every day while McCain has been barely mentioned.

Og

 

[sr71plt]

It may be that McCain has had fewer column inches in the UK in recent weeks. Clinton and Obama have been in UK newspapers and on TV news almost every day while McCain has been barely mentioned.

Og

But what is McCain mentioned for in the UK press. I'll wager the "we can stay in Iraq for a hundred years" sound byte predominates.

 

[colddiesel]

I live in Australia but spend 40% of my time in UK and US. The response to McCain in Australia seems to be a rather more favourable. He is respected more in Oz because unlike so many prominent Americans he fought in Vietnam( as did Australia but not Britain).

 

[sr71plt]

I live in Australia but spend 40% of my time in UK and US. The response to McCain in Australia seems to be a rather more favourable. He is respected more in Oz because unlike so many prominent Americans he fought in Vietnam( as did Australia but not Britain).

He's respected in the States greatly for that too. So, I'm not sure of the difference--unless it's that he's a Repubican here at a very bad time to be a Republican (and maybe Aussies are blind to this aspect), or Aussies don't realize how old he is.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I live in Australia but spend 40% of my time in UK and US. The response to McCain in Australia seems to be a rather more favourable. He is respected more in Oz because unlike so many prominent Americans he fought in Vietnam( as did Australia but not Britain).

And that means a lot to a generation of us.

 

[fifty5]

I live in Australia but spend 40% of my time in UK and US. The response to McCain in Australia seems to be a rather more favourable. He is respected more in Oz because unlike so many prominent Americans he fought in Vietnam (as did Australia but not Britain).

As a genuine question, why is his war record relevant? Was he a conscript or a volunteer? If a conscript, why is that to his credit? If a volunteer, was that because of unthinking 'patriotism', or blood-lust to kill 'commies'? Is there a laudable justification for fighting?

The US finally got out of 'Nam for entirely pragmatic reasons (the war proved impossible to win) - while many, many vets resented being called up.

For Oz, Vietnam was far too close for comfort. In the times of the cold (read as at least blood-heat) war, communism was a real threat to personal liberty. For the UK, aside from the threat of ICBMs, it wasn't.

Read "Requiem for a Wren" by Nevil Shute for a well argued case that for most survivors, WW2 was a thrilling time - and that that generation would go to war again for personal gratification. I can't see that either Korea or Vietnam is significantly different.

I'm not convinced that a military service record is much of a recommendation.

(Also see "Catch 22")

 

[voluptuary_manque]

As a genuine question, why is his war record relevant? Was he a conscript or a volunteer? If a conscript, why is that to his credit? If a volunteer, was that because of unthinking 'patriotism', or blood-lust to kill 'commies'? Is there a laudable justification for fighting?

The US finally got out of 'Nam for entirely pragmatic reasons (the war proved impossible to win) - while many, many vets resented being called up.

For Oz, Vietnam was far too close for comfort. In the times of the cold (read as at least blood-heat) war, communism was a real threat to personal liberty. For the UK, aside from the threat of ICBMs, it wasn't.

Read "Requiem for a Wren" by Nevil Shute for a well argued case that for most survivors, WW2 was a thrilling time - and that that generation would go to war again for personal gratification. I can't see that either Korea or Vietnam is significantly different.

I'm not convinced that a military service record is much of a recommendation.

(Also see "Catch 22")

He placed himself between his beloved home and the war's desolation. However stupid the involvement in Vietnam was (started by Kennedy and driven by Johnson's ego), unlike most of the glitterati of Washington, McCain put duty before pleasure. For that alone, he deserves respect.

 

[rgraham666]

He placed himself between his beloved home and the war's desolation. However stupid the involvement in Vietnam was (started by Kennedy and driven by Johnson's ego), unlike most of the glitterati of Washington, McCain put duty before pleasure. For that alone, he deserves respect.

Agreed.

If I were an American I still wouldn't vote for him, but I honour what he did.

 

[Belegon]

He placed himself between his beloved home and the war's desolation. However stupid the involvement in Vietnam was (started by Kennedy and driven by Johnson's ego), unlike most of the glitterati of Washington, McCain put duty before pleasure. For that alone, he deserves respect.

With all due respect, VM...

Kennedy continued what Eisenhower started. We had advisors in Nam as early as '54.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

No, Kennedy increased what Eisenhower started. The number of advisors during the Eisenhower years was minimal. They increased dramatically under Kennedy. This is to completely ignore the Kennedy-driven assassination of Ky. Then, under Johnson . . . well, let's just not go there. The memories are too poignant. 50,000 of my brothers and sisters died so that LBJ wouldn't look "soft on Communism".

 

[Belegon]

No, Kennedy increased what Eisenhower started. The number of advisors during the Eisenhower years was minimal. They increased dramatically under Kennedy. This is to completely ignore the Kennedy-driven assassination of Ky. Then, under Johnson . . . well, let's just not go there. The memories are too poignant. 50,000 of my brothers and sisters died so that LBJ wouldn't look "soft on Communism".

Don't forget, my dad did a tour and a half in Nam. (25th Infantry) My best friend in high school never met his father because of it. We are not talking about something that started the way the current fiasco did. There was a very different POV at work.

 

[DesertPirate]

No, Kennedy increased what Eisenhower started. The number of advisors during the Eisenhower years was minimal. They increased dramatically under Kennedy. This is to completely ignore the Kennedy-driven assassination of Ky. Then, under Johnson . . . well, let's just not go there. The memories are too poignant. 50,000 of my brothers and sisters died so that LBJ wouldn't look "soft on Communism".

Don't forget that we never were allowed to try and win. The whole episode was fought with one hand tied behind our backs at best.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

And so an entire generation has serious doubts about ever voting for any Democrat. Will another generation feel the same way about Republicans?

 

[Belegon]

Don't forget that we never were allowed to try and win. The whole episode was fought with one hand tied behind our backs at best.

absolutely. at best. totally ridiculous, IMHO.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

absolutely. at best. totally ridiculous, IMHO.

An opinion shared.

 

[DesertPirate]

absolutely. at best. totally ridiculous, IMHO.

There was never a real attempt to win under Johnson. Nixon was little better until the Christmas bombing. He got them back to the table for real discussions in 11 days. Just by showing he really would bomb their country back to the stone age.
If Johnson would have done that in 66 he might have saved 40,000 American lives.

 

[Belegon]

There was never a real attempt to win under Johnson. Nixon was little better until the Christmas bombing. He got them back to the table for real discussions in 11 days. Just by showing he really would bomb their country back to the stone age.
If Johnson would have done that in 66 he might have saved 40,000 American lives.

I agree.

I'm torn sometimes when Nam gets brought up in the current climate. I mean, the parallels are obviously there... but the whole world view was so different then.

The thing is, the NV regulars never were our match, anymore than the Republican Guard were... I mean, yeah, they did better than Hussein's forces, but that is kinda faint praise. If we had headed for Hanoi the way we headed for Baghdad? With the dedicated effort we used on Baghdad?

But the VC? They struck and disappeared. We never could get a handle on that and forty years later we still can't.

Intervening in a civil war, even one that is somewhat on hold due to a dictator being in the way, is not wise. Just like you never interrupt a fight between brothers. They will both turn on you, forgetting their own differences until you are taken out.