|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 10:49 am Post subject: Why Hillary beat Barack in NH; And what it means |
 |
|
It's the economy, stupid
| Quote: |
With all the blather about this election being about nebulous and ever-morphing conceptions of "change'', voters (at least those over 30, whom Clinton did far better with than younger voters in New Hampshire) can look back, recall the prosperity and success of the Clinton 1990s, decide that they want the tried and tested sure thing over the untested longshot Obama.
Exit polls of New Hampshire primary voters go a long way towards proving this point. Clinton won the overall balloting by three percentage points, 39-36%, but among voters who reported their 2007 family income as being between $15,000 and $30,000, Clinton won by 21 points, 50-29. Among voters with family income between $30,000 and $50,000 she won by 12; in contrast, Obama won the $100,000 to $150,000 crowd by 10 points, 43-33 . . .
Whether or not she intended it or not, Clinton's slightly more centrist positions, on Iraq, on Iran, on healthcare, appeal to the blue collar lower-income Democrats, if only, perhaps, because these positions so irritate the younger sophisticates. It is endlessly repeated that the jobs of those whose education goes no further than high (secondary) school are most at risk from competition with the new globalized workforce, especially in the tougher economic times America now seem to be entering.
Clinton won the high school-only vote 46-31, as for those with some postgraduate college education Obama won 43-31. In Hanover, New Hampshire, home to prestigious Ivy League Dartmouth College, Obama bested Clinton by an almost 2.5 to 1 margin; by comparison, in much larger Manchester, home of one of the few remaining industrial manufacturing redoubts in the state, indeed, one of last of the rapidly disappearing industrial manufacturing communities in the country, Clinton bested Obama by a 60% to 40% margin. |
A number of observations, which I admit are highly speculative:
1) As the economy worsens, Clinton gains
2) Should news from Iraq get worse, Obama gains
3) Should Edwards leave the race early, Clinton would gain UNLESS Edwards specifically endorses Obama
4) No matter what happens, the media will be further discredited. But this time, the blogosphere has lost some face |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
voters (at least those over 30, whom Clinton did far better with than younger voters in New Hampshire) can look back, recall the prosperity and success of the Clinton 1990s, decide that they want the tried and tested sure thing over the untested longshot Obama.
|
I am not an economist, but I would have to say that it's pretty naive to think that simply electing the spouse of the man who was president in the 90s(or for that matter the man himself) will bring back the economic conditions that prevailed then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
voters (at least those over 30, whom Clinton did far better with than younger voters in New Hampshire) can look back, recall the prosperity and success of the Clinton 1990s, decide that they want the tried and tested sure thing over the untested longshot Obama.
|
I am not an economist, but I would have to say that it's pretty naive to think that simply electing the spouse of the man who was president in the 90s(or for that matter the man himself) will bring back the economic conditions that prevailed then. |
When you put it that way, then yes, it is naive.
Argument: Hillary will put in the same advisors whom advised Clinton to eschew typical FDR-LBJ leftist economics
Counter-argument #1: Wasn't Clinton cozy with Greenspan. How'd that work out?
Counter-argument #2: Hillary has been advocating her own platform, even questioning NAFTA
----------------
I don't think its unreasonable for people to pick a known quantity over an unknown. What experience does Obama have of anything economic?
Hillary wasn't my first choice, and Obama is not my last. But I'm going to have to favor Hillary's chances in handling this mess based on her policy wonkishness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
As the economy worsens, Clinton gains
|
I think that is almost certainly true. The idealism that Obama represents is all well and good, but a lot less enticing when you feel your pocketbook is threatened. Hillary Clinton benefits from Bill Clinton's good policies and good luck.
But I'm not convinced the article is right about why she won in New Hampshire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
I don't think its unreasonable for people to pick a known quantity over an unknown. What experience does Obama have of anything economic?
|
In fact it is quite reasonable and the usual course of action people take. That is a big reason incumbents are successful in re-election: they are known and have a track record. That is also why Hillary is doing as well as she's doing; she's more familiar than Obama. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| ...but I would have to say that it's pretty naive to think that simply electing the spouse of the man who was president in the 90s...will bring back the economic conditions that prevailed then. |
It certainly would be naive.
I am one who supports Clinton for this reason. But to clarify, I do not support her because I believe she will bring back the economic conditions of the 1990s. Too complex for such a simplistic idea. Rather, I support her because I believe she would approach national and international politics with similar advisors, not to mention her husband himself, who was, in my opinion, an excellent, strong president (but for his personal failings and those of his unrelenting, ruthless enemies, in all fairness). It is almost a no-brainer that Holbrooke would serve her as SecState.
In short, On the other hand, I, like anybody else, really have no idea what conditions and challenges will present themselves to W. Bush's successor. But I have confidence that Clinton and the quality of people she would bring with her would face them well -- and in any case, far better than W. Bush and the people he brought with him.
I cannot speak for others, but when I decide which presidential candidates I will support, I am concerned with more than the individual him or herself. It is also important to look at the kind of people any given candidate will surround him or herself with, what they believe, how they face problems, how they deal with opposition, etc.
In this respect, I feel highly confident in both McCain and Clinton. Obama is far too idealistic for my taste. And at the end of the day, I remain undecided about him. As far as most of the others, I am either agnostic, suspicious, or opposed to their candidacies because I cannot say about them what I can say about McCain and Clinton. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I cannot speak for others, but when I decide which presidential candidates I will support, I am concerned with more than the individual him or herself. It is also important to look at the kind of people any given candidate will surround him or herself with, what they believe, how they face problems, how they deal with opposition, etc.
|
Yes, this goes to the character issue. Last week someone mentioned one of the candidates didn't seem 'presidential'; I took that as a reference to character. Some people give out a feeling that they can handle the job and some don't. In the end, this part of the calculation of choosing which candidate to back is a gut reaction; a feeling; a vibe. I will never understand how Bush got elected--he never came across like he would be up to the job. His father did. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Is anyone else at all uneasy about how active Bill is in Hillary's campaign? In '92 when Bill was running the first time, for a while he billed Hillary this way: Vote for me and you get two for one. Quite a few people, rightly I think, objected, saying there's only one president at a time. (And why former presidents keep quiet almost all the time about policy issues.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Is anyone else at all uneasy about... |
Yes, somewhat. I am uneasy about both Clinton and Carter's high-profile, highly-partisan, post-presidential activism.
Perhaps we are not accustomed to it because it has been so long that particular presidents could assume such a profile. Think of LBJ who retired in disgrace; Nixon, forced to resign; Reagan, drooling in a cup.
But I do think Ford and H.W. Bush have shown decent examples. Let us hope that W. Bush just goes away after Jan. 2009... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think Ford, Carter, H.W. Bush and Clinton have all done a wonderful job of being former presidents. No problem with that. It's just Clinton's (overly) active role in the campaign that is making me slightly uneasy.
I don't remember either Truman or Eisenhower doing anything, but by the time I was old enough to notice, they were both elderly, so they could have. I do remember a wonderful story from an oral bio of Truman I read years ago. I think it was right after WWII, but it could have been at another time...Truman called up Hoover and asked him to head some humanitarian commission. It was really a nice story about respect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hoover was a genuine humanitarian, of course.
But that is not what I mean when I express my own disapproval of Carter and Clinton. They take partisan sides, for example Carter on Israel, way too often for my liking, for former presidents and so-called elder statesmen. And did Clinton not get into a shouting match, so to speak, with W. Bush over whose fault 9/11 was...? Inappropriate. Here I fault W. Bush, too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| For what it's worth (he might just be hedging his bets) Warren Buffet has strongly supported both Hillary and Obama, and I saw him on a TV interview explain that he thinks both of them understand how to strengthen the American economy - more so than any of the other contenders in either party... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's the phony "voting" system, stupid ...
| bacasper wrote: |
Chip in for the recount:
Go to www.grannywarrior.com.
It seems Ron Paul may have actually gotten 20% of the vote.
If the recount results in him getting a delegate, under NH law the recount money is returned and so you may just get back your money.
This recount will be for all candidates. |
20%???  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 4:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Diebold Favors Hillary, Hand Count For Obama
Wed, 01/09/2008 - 05:46 - clark
I used the Comma delimited database: NH municipalities hand count vs use Diebold machines from BlackBoxVoting.org to see if there was a deviation between the results from precincts which used hand counts and those which relied on Diebold machines.
The results were astonishing:
Updated: 5:05 AM (EST) - Results tallied for 209 out of 236 of the municipalities.
By Percentage
Method Hillary Clinton Barack Obama
Diebold Machines 53.23% 46.77%
Hand Count 47.47% 52.53%
By Votes
Method Hillary Clinton Barack Obama
Diebold Machines 82860 72807
Hand Count 18898 20912
By Number of Municipalities Won
Method Hillary Clinton Barack Obama
Diebold Machines 54 33
Hand Count 43 77
About 81% of the votes will be "counted" by the Diebold machines 
http://presscue.com/node/38034 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 5:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| But I do think Ford and H.W. Bush have shown decent examples. Let us hope that W. Bush just goes away after Jan. 2009... |
Uggh Bush and Cheney post this administration. Hard to think about.
My guess is that Cheney will be heavily involved with some war contractor types and continuing in some way promoting war contractor's as a big profitable money-making business tying it in with being good for America.
It's a lot less clear with Bush. He'll become like Charles Heston is for NRA. Bush will show up occassionally representing something questionable - opening up Alaska for oil type things, etc., I'd imagine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
