The US Presidential Elections.

[davieG]

He sounds a bit upset - http://www.libertari...erica-only.html

Secondly, today starts a new course for my life. I've soured on electoral politics given what happened last night. I believe now the best course of action is outright revolt. What do I mean by that?

Well, to each his own. Some may choose to push secession in their state legislatures. Others may choose to leave the U.S. for good (Costa Rica, Switzerland, Italy, Argentina, Hong Kong, Israel). Still others may want to personally separate themselves from the United States here in North America while still living under communist rule' the Glenn Beck, grab your guns, food storage, build bunkers, survivalist route. I heartily endorse all these efforts

Express your hatred, shame, and outright disgust with anyone you know who voted Democrat

However, for me, I'm choosing another rather unique path; a personal boycott, if you will. Starting early this morning, I am going to un-friend every single individual on Facebook who voted for Obama, or I even suspect may have Democrat leanings. I will do the same in person. All family and friends, even close family and friends, who I know to be Democrats are hereby dead to me. I vow never to speak to them again for the rest of my life, or have any communications with them. They are in short, the enemies of liberty. They deserve nothing less than hatred and utter contempt.

[Jon the Hat]

Brilliant. Nothing like completely cutting yourself off from other's opinions to make absolutely sure you won't be able to understand anyone else or their point of view. What a moron. Hopefully the vast majority of Republicans will do the opposite and try to understand what it is that just lost them the election. That would be good for everyone.

[Alf Bentley]

It certainly seems as if it's the turn of the right to lose elections they should win, given the state of the economy. Some overlook just what a bad result the Tories had here in 2010. It was bad for Labour, obviously, but that's no surprise as they'd been in power for 13 years, the global economy had just crashed and Brown was personally unpopular. How the Tories failed to win a majority in those circumstances (and with a leader who was fairly convincing - to potential Tory voters, not me) is the mystery.

Common sense suggests that, unless the economy recovers significantly in the next 2 years (highly unlikely, I reckon), the Tories will haemorrhage more votes, though they may pick up extra seats in the SE & SW from a likely Lib Dem collapse. Milliband hasn't won many voters over, but probably doesn't need to do so. Opposition leaders never look like PMs until they're in office and it's governments that lose elections, not oppositions that win them, to repeat an old cliche. All he needs to do is come across as fairly competent and avoid doing anything stupid - and he's well capable of that, being sharper than most people reckon....and has cabinet experience, which is more than Blair or Cameron had before becoming PM.

Will the Tories "do a Romney", though, and self-destruct by pandering to their right wing and raving on about Europe? I suspect they will, as too many of their MPs and activists are ideologically committed to a right-wing, anti-EU stance. There are advantages for them in such raving. UKIP will probably do well in the 2013 Euro elections and get a bounce from that, so the Tories could limit support drifting to UKIP by such Europhobia - and if the Euro has imploded by then, an anti-EU stance could still be a winner. But it hasn't been a winner in the past. History tells that while many support this anti-EU stance, it's not the issue on which swing voters decide their votes; it just panders to voters who'd never vote Labour anyway. The state of the economy and its effects on voters' pockets is likely to be decisive. Unfortunately for everyone, I can't see that improving much. Many of the public spending cuts are yet to happen and the deficit hasn't shrunk, prices are still rising more than wages (likely to continue), millions are in part-time or low-paid jobs if not unemployed - and even if the private sector does get any more money out of the banks, will they want to invest large amounts when domestic demand is squeezed and the prospects of a boost in exports seem poor (China? USA?? EU?!?)?

Of course, a lot can happen in 2+ years, but that could easily be detrimental to the Tories. Their right wing is already strong and grumbling about Cameron being too moderate. That's only likely to get worse if their poll ratings don't improve....and there's the Corby by-election around the corner, thanks to the Mensch egotist, plus a probable UKIP triumph in the 2013 Euro elections in the offing. Some degree of Tory civil war seems inevitable, and voters don't like divided parties. Nor do they like divided governments, and the Lib Dems are bound to start panicking about their poll ratings and trying to dissociate themselves from Cameron...

A long way to go, but I can see good prospects for Labour in 2015...though the prospects for the economy seem pretty rubbish in the meantime, so they might be handed the sort of poisoned chalice that Bush gave Obama in 2012. Doubtless, some feel Brown did likewise to Cameron - and there's some justification for that view (failure to correct the deficit in the boom years; encouraging financial deregulation), even if the global crisis began in the US and continues to relate to German and Chinese trade surpluses etc. However, if the Tories had been in government earlier, while they might have cut the deficit a bit more, that would have been peanuts compared to the damage done by the financial crisis - and they'd have probably encouraged even more bank deregulation!

Apologies for the essay (!), but these are interesting - and dangerous - times in politics...

[z-layrex]

It certainly seems as if it's the turn of the right to lose elections they should win, given the state of the economy. Some overlook just what a bad result the Tories had here in 2010. It was bad for Labour, obviously, but that's no surprise as they'd been in power for 13 years, the global economy had just crashed and Brown was personally unpopular. How the Tories failed to win a majority in those circumstances (and with a leader who was fairly convincing - to potential Tory voters, not me) is the mystery.

Common sense suggests that, unless the economy recovers significantly in the next 2 years (highly unlikely, I reckon), the Tories will haemorrhage more votes, though they may pick up extra seats in the SE & SW from a likely Lib Dem collapse. Milliband hasn't won many voters over, but probably doesn't need to do so. Opposition leaders never look like PMs until they're in office and it's governments that lose elections, not oppositions that win them, to repeat an old cliche. All he needs to do is come across as fairly competent and avoid doing anything stupid - and he's well capable of that, being sharper than most people reckon....and has cabinet experience, which is more than Blair or Cameron had before becoming PM.

Will the Tories "do a Romney", though, and self-destruct by pandering to their right wing and raving on about Europe? I suspect they will, as too many of their MPs and activists are ideologically committed to a right-wing, anti-EU stance. There are advantages for them in such raving. UKIP will probably do well in the 2013 Euro elections and get a bounce from that, so the Tories could limit support drifting to UKIP by such Europhobia - and if the Euro has imploded by then, an anti-EU stance could still be a winner. But it hasn't been a winner in the past. History tells that while many support this anti-EU stance, it's not the issue on which swing voters decide their votes; it just panders to voters who'd never vote Labour anyway. The state of the economy and its effects on voters' pockets is likely to be decisive. Unfortunately for everyone, I can't see that improving much. Many of the public spending cuts are yet to happen and the deficit hasn't shrunk, prices are still rising more than wages (likely to continue), millions are in part-time or low-paid jobs if not unemployed - and even if the private sector does get any more money out of the banks, will they want to invest large amounts when domestic demand is squeezed and the prospects of a boost in exports seem poor (China? USA?? EU?!?)?

Of course, a lot can happen in 2+ years, but that could easily be detrimental to the Tories. Their right wing is already strong and grumbling about Cameron being too moderate. That's only likely to get worse if their poll ratings don't improve....and there's the Corby by-election around the corner, thanks to the Mensch egotist, plus a probable UKIP triumph in the 2013 Euro elections in the offing. Some degree of Tory civil war seems inevitable, and voters don't like divided parties. Nor do they like divided governments, and the Lib Dems are bound to start panicking about their poll ratings and trying to dissociate themselves from Cameron...

A long way to go, but I can see good prospects for Labour in 2015...though the prospects for the economy seem pretty rubbish in the meantime, so they might be handed the sort of poisoned chalice that Bush gave Obama in 2012. Doubtless, some feel Brown did likewise to Cameron - and there's some justification for that view (failure to correct the deficit in the boom years; encouraging financial deregulation), even if the global crisis began in the US and continues to relate to German and Chinese trade surpluses etc. However, if the Tories had been in government earlier, while they might have cut the deficit a bit more, that would have been peanuts compared to the damage done by the financial crisis - and they'd have probably encouraged even more bank deregulation!

Apologies for the essay (!), but these are interesting - and dangerous - times in politics...

Christ some of you guys make me feel so stupid when I read your political posts.

[Carl the Llama]

Very interesting article on the BBC site about vote predictions using maths instead of biased opinion and/or a will to spin.

[Jon the Hat]

Contrary to the Republican problem, the main threat to the Tories re-election chances is losing votes to UKIP. So in fact there is a genuine risk that if the do not "pander" to the Eurosceptics that they split the right and miss out to a vaguely coherent centre grab by Labour. It will be a tricky balance to achieve, not giving up the centre while trying to keep the right.

I do think most voters remain unconvinced by Milliband, and still do not trust Labour with the economy. Still a big issue.

[MC Prussian]

[ADK]

I think the Tories will get re-elected so long as Ed Milliband remains Labour leader. They may fail to win an outright majority but they will be the largest party in the commons.

[Guest MattP]

Contrary to the Republican problem, the main threat to the Tories re-election chances is losing votes to UKIP. So in fact there is a genuine risk that if the do not "pander" to the Eurosceptics that they split the right and miss out to a vaguely coherent centre grab by Labour. It will be a tricky balance to achieve, not giving up the centre while trying to keep the right.

I do think most voters remain unconvinced by Milliband, and still do not trust Labour with the economy. Still a big issue.

UKIP could actually cost the Tories the election in my opinion, I think they could easily take 10% of the vote across the country next time round. Thatcher was marvellous at dividing the left and uniting the right, we'll see how good Miliband and Cameron can play to their respective plans.

Oh dear, another leftist "If you don't agree with us you obviously aren't as educated as us" post, of course the stats will show that, look at the amount of college's in those areas on the left.

[MC Prussian]

Oh dear, another leftist "If you don't agree with us you obviously aren't as educated as us" post, of course the stats will show that, look at the amount of college's in those areas on the left.

I'm sorry, but the size of the state has nothing to do with it.

Historically, the East Coast features more universities and colleges that were established decades, if not hundreds of years before the ones in the West were founded.

Besides, many of the States on the right (the ones where Romney was fancied) offer numerous higher education facilities.

Look, I was so nice to compile a list (public and private schools):

West Virginia: 30-40

Mississippi: 60-65

Arkansas: 45-50

Kentucky: 65-70

Louisiana: 45-50

Alabama: 60-65

Nevada: 20-25

Indiana: 55-60

Tennessee: 90-95

Oklahoma: 50-55

Hardly a lack of choice.

[Alf Bentley]

Contrary to the Republican problem, the main threat to the Tories re-election chances is losing votes to UKIP. So in fact there is a genuine risk that if the do not "pander" to the Eurosceptics that they split the right and miss out to a vaguely coherent centre grab by Labour. It will be a tricky balance to achieve, not giving up the centre while trying to keep the right.

I do think most voters remain unconvinced by Milliband, and still do not trust Labour with the economy. Still a big issue.

If the UK general election takes place under vaguely normal conditions, I suspect that the UKIP vote will only be influential if the result is very close (possible).

I'd fully expect UKIP to do well in the Euro elections again. When it comes to choosing a national government, though, that normally focuses minds and their vote usually falls back. Also, some places where the UKIP vote is strong, the Tories have very few vulnerable seats in any case (SW, home counties). UKIP could hand Labour a few Tory seats in places like Yorkshire, East Lancs, Medway Towns, Thames estuary, conceivably swinging the final outcome, but it'd have to be close anyway, I think.

Of course, if conditions are NOT normal (e.g. collapse of Eurozone or Cameron being forced to give more UK funds to the EU to bail out the Mediterranean countries), then all bets are off as I'm sure UKIP could have a much bigger surge.

I still reckon the state of the economy is more likely to be decisive. If money is still tight for a lot of people in 2 years time, then they'll blame the Tories for failing to sort the problems out at least as much as Labour for "causing" them. If the economy is on an upturn, I can imagine the Tories getting voted back in (and picking up a load of Lib Dem seats).

As a side issue, I think Labour gets blamed for the wrong things. It should be blamed for banking deregulation (though the Tories would've done the same), for PFI schemes mortgaging future generations, for not addressing pensions/the demographic time-bomb & for not correcting the (small) deficit in the boom years....however the (big) deficit & debt now hanging around our neck would've happened anyway due to the financial crisis, even if banking deregulation hadn't happened here, as our economy is too small and open to have resisted the knock-on effects of the US crisis. Brown (& Blair) avoid the blame for the sins I've mentioned but get blamed for something largely beyond their control - indeed Brown was probably influential in ensuring the crash wasn't even worse!

A lot can happen in 2 years, though...

[Alf Bentley]

Interesting...not least as it demonstrates clear differences between the US and the UK.

Most of the "best educated" areas in the UK (or England, at least) would be Tory or Lib Dem, I suspect

[Carl the Llama]

Interesting...not least as it demonstrates clear differences between the US and the UK.

Most of the "best educated" areas in the UK (or England, at least) would be Tory or Lib Dem, I suspect

It really bugs me when people use personal, often biased, instincts as evidence. See the article I posted above as a good explanation of why.

Very interesting article on the BBC site about vote predictions using maths instead of biased opinion and/or a will to spin.

[ADK]

Blaming Labour for the economy being ****ed up by the financial sector is pretty stupid. Pretty sure it was Thatcher that led to the financial sector being such a huge part of the economy and to think that the Tories would have been tighter in regulating the industry is naive. One thing Labour do that can be dangerous to the economy however is uncontrolled spending. This the real failing of Labour and all Labour governments in general have been guilty of this. It goes against economic theory and leads to serious economic problems.

[Guest MattP]

Blaming Labour for the economy being ****ed up by the financial sector is pretty stupid. Pretty sure it was Thatcher that led to the financial sector being such a huge part of the economy and to think that the Tories would have been tighter in regulating the industry is naive. One thing Labour do that can be dangerous to the economy however is uncontrolled spending. This the real failing of Labour and all Labour governments in general have been guilty of this. It goes against economic theory and leads to serious economic problems.

I'm almost at the point where I would actually like to see Labour in power when the coffers aren't full, would be interesting.

Everytime they take power they leave us bankrupt anyway so might as well get them in while we're skint.

[Webbo]

Blaming Labour for the economy being ****ed up by the financial sector is pretty stupid. Pretty sure it was Thatcher that led to the financial sector being such a huge part of the economy and to think that the Tories would have been tighter in regulating the industry is naive. One thing Labour do that can be dangerous to the economy however is uncontrolled spending. This the real failing of Labour and all Labour governments in general have been guilty of this. It goes against economic theory and leads to serious economic problems.

Was Bush responsible for the crash in America?

[ADK]

Was Bush responsible for the crash in America?

Clinton imo.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/bank-n01.shtml

But the Bush administation would have backed that too.

[Guest MattP]

Could Clinton be "the American Thatcher"

[ADK]

I'm almost at the point where I would actually like to see Labour in power when the coffers aren't full, would be interesting.

Everytime they take power they leave us bankrupt anyway so might as well get them in while we're skint.

We'd either end up like Greece or they'd have to stop spending.

[Fox in the North]

Ahh can't follow the thread anymore, I'm struggling to understand/cope with it x)

It's been the 1st time (in my relatively short life) that I've actually started to get interested in politics and American politics for that matter. I've always had some grasp of it from watching the news and that but in the end I'd just get fed up with some of the bickering and just lose interest again.

However this election has certainly got me very interested again, but alas I have no idea really where I fall into it all haha. Because I like some ideas and that but others I think are silly etc so generally I think Im boringly central. Then again I think I'm not even sure what that means! Haha. Help?

[Carl the Llama]

Ahh can't follow the thread anymore, I'm struggling to understand/cope with it x)

It's been the 1st time (in my relatively short life) that I've actually started to get interested in politics and American politics for that matter. I've always had some grasp of it from watching the news and that but in the end I'd just get fed up with some of the bickering and just lose interest again.

However this election has certainly got me very interested again, but alas I have no idea really where I fall into it all haha. Because I like some ideas and that but others I think are silly etc so generally I think Im boringly central. Then again I think I'm not even sure what that means! Haha. Help?

Don't feel bad that you're torn - only a moron would agree with everything proposed by a particular party, deciding which way to vote is basically an exercise in determining the lesser evil/band of idiots.

[Fox in the North]

Don't feel bad that you're torn - only a moron would agree with everything proposed by a particular party, deciding which way to vote is basically an exercise in determining the lesser evil/band of idiots.

Thats generally how it feels haha. But I struggle to think of how i could argue for a certain side in particular with set beliefs as I can see flaws x) but im intrigued as to how politcal I am/what side i'm more affiliated with, if you understand me.

[Alf Bentley]

It really bugs me when people use personal, often biased, instincts as evidence. See the article I posted above as a good explanation of why.

You have a point, but seriously overstate your case.

I did read your article. However, the sort of accuracy achievable in aggregated polls in the USA cannot be matched in the UK.

In the USA, there were 51 constituencies (states/DC), only about 12 of which had any prospect of changing hands. Most states also had millions of voters, so it was comparatively easy to get a representative sample - and lots of polls were carried out at constituency (state) level. Compare that to the UK: 650 constituencies, each with only about 70,000 constituents. Comparatively few polls are conducted at constituency level in the UK, and those that are conducted couldn't hope to get a sample as large and balanced as that possible at the level of a US state. Aggregate polls in the UK in 2010 significantly overstated the likely Lib Dem performance. A simple, accurate mathematical answer is not available here!

I didn't claim to have evidence about the education/voting correlation in the UK, but presented an educated guess, based on some prior knowledge. Certainly not perfect knowledge, so I may have it wrong - for this, accurate stats probably are available.