Asymmetrical Information

Win the election? I think it could be uphill for her to even get the nomination.

The netroots crowd mostly hate her, and they're disproportionately influential in the primaries. The rest of the party could well end up split between Obama, her, and whoever else manages to raise enough money to look like a potential winner.

That last part is the key. Committed Democrats will be practically leaping off bridges if they don't take the presidency in the next election, and I think they'll be thinking hard about a candidate with negative numbers as strong as Hillary's. I think a lot of them feel as if they threw away a wonderful chance to win last time; they won't be in the mood for a repeat.

Couldn't log in on Enonmist.com due to server problems on their end.

Two US centric novels on politics:
- "All the King's Men" - obvious, but a great examination of populism and corruption. Set in a fictionalized version of Huey Long's Louisiana, but could have been written about any of the big machine cities and states like Daley's Chicago, IL.
- "Advise and Consent" - somewhat dated, but the politics of personal destruction in the novel are just amplified in today's 24/7 news system.

The honest answer is: "It's too early to tell." If Mrs. Clinton, like Howard Dean, is perceived as the "front-runner," then a few things might happen. Her rivals for the nomination will focus their camapign (attacks, etc.) on her. A political primary is a zero-sum game. You can't climb a poll without another candidate going down.

Front-runners get intense media scrutiny. Some such as Reagan and Gore (in 2000) can skillfully handle it. Others such as Howard Dean and Ed Muskie self-destruct.

I agree with Ech about "All the King's Men" and "Advise and Consent." I know historian Thomas Fleming has written a few novels about big-city machine politics in Jersey City, but they don't have the status of "All the King's Men" and "Advise and Consent."

Parliment of Whores is the best description of late 20th century American politics I've read.

Oh, wait, it's satire?

Yeah, like I said, the best description of American politics.

Can Hill win? D Dashes is right, too soon to tell. Obama is coming on hard and you hate to bet against anyone who has momentum on their side. He could be the wild card in the race by either taking it outright or forcing Hill into an error when she has to cater to the extreme left to win the Dem primaries.

Also, what are the best politic books ever?

“First Among Equals” by Jeffrey Archer (yes, the one who was imprisoned for perjury). It’s the story about the lives of four men who aspire to become the Prime Minister of the UK during the 1970’s/80’s and I found it interesting because the author did a pretty good job of explaining the British political system and what the three parties and the four contenders believed.

“The Manchurian Candidate” by Richard Condon. Great book that become an equally great movie.

“A firing offense” by David Ignatius. Great book dealing with both the ethics of journalism but deals with issues of international trade and technology transfers.

She won't even get the nomination. Barack Obama really is the front-runner, and when he finally believes it (in about 6 months), he will seriously declare and win the nomination in a cake-walk.

"The Prince."
"The Making of the President 1960."

Is America ready for, possibly, 28 straight years of governance by the Bush and Clinton familities?
And, in the wings, maybe Jenna and Chelsea face off when they are old enough. While there have always been family political dynasties, we can certainly do better than these two.

Too soon to tell is right. I don't think one can assume Obama will win in a cake-walk; he's the frontrunner now and certainly has the edge in charisma, but black candidates are working against a widespread and probably correct suspicion that some nutcase will try to assassinate them if they get the nomination. He has at least a chance of bucking the odds, though, especially since Clinton hasn't shown much in the way of spine even by Democratic standards. Edwards, however, could wind up surprising both of them.

Hillary could win. It's not probably, but definitely possible. Obama's getting a lot of media attention, and may therefore draw a lot of attention and dollars away from other potential anti-Hillary candidates.

Jude Wanniski's The Way the World Works is a great political book. Dinesh D'Souza's Ronald Reagan is another good one.

Dr. Slack,

There are nutjobs that want to assassinate any candidate. I am sure there are a lot of such people who would like to take out Mrs. Clinton.

However, when asked for a prognostication, it is an evasion of the question to write "too soon to tell". Much better to write "I don't want to take a guess", or take a guess with a specific scenario.

Hillary is way too divisive to win the General Election, and I think the Democrats are stupid enough to nominate her anyway.

The Democrats keep forgetting that Americans vote for the friendlier, cuddlier candidate. For good or bad, Americans want a president they'd want to invite over for a backyard BBQ, not a stiff, wonky sourpuss.

If she can get the nomination, a lot (the whole thing) would depend on the other candidate(s). A Bob Dole clone could lose to anybody. McCain, Giuliani, and Romney all have some exploitable negatives which might split their base of support, and a potential 3d party candidate to split the "right" might reprise 1992, when Clinton (the other one) won with 40 something % of the vote. So it is very possible that Hillary could win.

How can she lose? The Democrats could with a well-groomed muskrat nominee as long as it has a heartbeat.

Really the Reps have lost credibility so badly that even the stalwart McCain or Gulliani would have a lotta 'xplaining to do.

Why is Barak Obama being seriously considered as a candidate. The guy hasn't even finished one term in the Senate. I hate to say it, but it strikes me that his accomplishments to date amount to giving a good speech and being a non-scary black man.

"...being a non-scary black man."

Only because you don't know "bupkus" about his politics. Once you do, he's as scary as the "Hillabeast".

Hillary! consistently polls at over 40% among Democrats. So it appears the nomination is hers to lose. Barack Obama has been very brave in campaigning against partisanship, and for Good Government from the platform of various media sources, from "Time" magazine on out. He's the only competition she has. Clearly, White Males Need Not Apply, although Joe Stassen...er...Biden doesn't seem to have checked his inbox lately.

Either nominee would have heavy media cheerleading as The First Presidential Candidate, never mind that there have already been women and black men running for the office. In the new McCain-Feingold world, that free advertising is worth even more than it used to be.

I'd call the odds of nomination 60/40 in favor of Hillary! but refuse to guess at the general election because of too many variables.

And you can take that to the bank...

Although come to think of it, the first candidate to come out and fully endorse the use of compact fluorescent lights might win it all...

And, in the wings, maybe Jenna and Chelsea face off when they are old enough.

I'm voting for Chelsea. Jenna is such a party girl.

Someone recently noted that the last election without a Bush or a Clinton on the ticket was 1976. That's 32 years, next year. I'd think the Shrub is sufficient illustration of why Americans should be suspicious of political dynasties - and I supported the Shrub, given the alternatives...

Could have been worse markm. We might have had a Kennedy or a Rockefeller on the ticket . . . .

I liked Vidal's historical novels mostly for their political machinations, specifically Burr, Lincoln and Julian. They are really much more political than historical. A lot of poeple claim Vidal is just being an iconclast. Maybe, maybe not, but the warts he gives our saints and the horns he removes from our devils make the novels work better.

A few months back I wrote on this blog that our closeminded nation was unwilling to tolerate a woman or non-white as president. I'm still clinging to that ugly belief though it is now seeming like a superstition.

I find it hard to believe that anyone other than Clinton or Obama will win the nomination. I also find it hard to believe that the Republicans will win the general election next time.

No prominent Republicans opposed Bush's follies. Any prominent Republican that runs will become a Bush effigy to be ritually defeated. That leaves nobodies. However, that was the problem with Bush. He was essentially a nobody with a famous name. He was a human ponzi scheme. There was nothing there except what other people put there. I doubt Republicans will invest much in another human ponzi scheme in '08.

My bet is that you get a Clinton/Obama ticket. Gets around Obama's lack of experience and gets the double wammy of the first women/black man at the same time. I always though the Rice would end up as the VP for the Reps in '08 for the same reason. I also think that we will get a Dem in '08 reguardless of who the Reps put up. (My feeling is that we will be in the 3-4th quarter of a recession by then and the war on Islamic fascism will still be ongoing with some improvements from now (including a slaughter of the Taliban this spring if they leave their holes)).

If something big happens all bets are off. I define big as one of the following: nuke/large bio attack anywhere in the western world or Japan, war in Korea, war in Taiwan, expanding the war on the Islamists to Syria or Iran, or a depression caused by widespread banking failures.

It's a done deal. Women are coming on and America craves female leadership. She and Boy Bill will dazzle. Only thing that could hurt her is if she stubs her toe on defense. I think she's much too smart and calculating to do that.

Njorl,

Could you please be so kind as to explain to me how Governor of Texas is a position that qualifies one as a "nobody"?

Also:

that our closeminded nation was unwilling to tolerate a woman or non-white as president.

I'll skip the critique of the high school pseudosophistication and address the heart of your comment, did you support Alan Keyes in his run? How about Elizabeth Dole? What level of experience and qualification do you believe is required of a credible candidate for President? Would you lower the standard for a woman or non-white (electoral affirmative action, if you will)?

The governer of Texas has nearly no duties. Texas is run by its legislature. There is a running joke in Texas that the lieutennent governer has more power because it gets to break ties in the legislature.

"I'll skip the critique of the high school pseudosophistication and address the heart of your comment, "

Well, there's a rhetorical shot to the foot if I ever saw one.

"did you support Alan Keyes in his run? "
Not being insane, no I did not.

"How about Elizabeth Dole?"
No, I disagree with her politics.

" What level of experience and qualification do you believe is required of a credible candidate for President? "
Experience - 35 years of post partum existance.
Qualification - capacity to somehow garner 50%+1 of the electoral votes.

" Would you lower the standard for a woman or non-white (electoral affirmative action, if you will)?"

No.

Any other nonsensical questions for Mr. Answer Man?

Here's a set for you Bill:

Do you think that there are people in this country who hold racist or mysoginist views? Are these views significant enough to alter voting decisions? Are there enough of these people to be the deciding factor in a single state? Could a single state be the deciding factor in a presidential election?

Njorl,

I'll answer your questions first:

Do you think that there are people in this country who hold racist or mysoginist views?

Sure. I think there are people all over the world who hold such views. Consequently, I think it's more than a little presumptuous for you to suggest that Americans are somehow especially close-minded for exhibiting these distinctly human traits.

Are these views significant enough to alter voting decisions?

In some cases. Of course that's a sword that cuts both ways. No doubt both a female or minority candidate could count on receiving some votes specifically because of their sex or ethnicity. You know, the sort who want to preen themselves about how open-minded they are.

Are there enough of these people to be the deciding factor in a single state?

It's possible in some states. But, I've little doubt that the opposing influence I cite could equally shift decision in other, more populous, states.

Could a single state be the deciding factor in a presidential election?

Again, it's possible. And, as I noted, the factor I cited would be more likely in the deciding states.

I'm perfectly well aware of the limitations in authority that the Texas Governorship is assigned. Nevertheless, I think its safe to say it carries more de facto power within its respective organization than one-term Senator, no? Moreover, that makes President Bush's success in the position all the more noteworthy. It suggests strongly that the success showed a capacity to build consensus.

I do have to note, your thinking on openmindedness seems a highly idiosyncratic one. When you don't like the candidates, its simply a question of political differences. When you like the candidates, its obviously because of closemindedness and bigotry.

Finally, dodges aside, you'll note that I referred to a credible candidate for the Presidency. Its clear from your dismissal of the Presidency that you consider Governor of Texas an insufficient qualification for consideration (noting it defines the officeholder as a "nobody"). Okay. Fine. What do you consider sufficient. If, as you say, over 35 and able to get 50%+1, then I don't see how you can suggest that the President is unqualified.

Sorry Bill, you're just not a suitable interlocuter. Become more honest in your interpretations of others writing.

Goodbye

In other words, you don't like getting called on your presumption. Okay.

Garry Wills' Nixon Agonistes, about the 1968 election.

Comments are Closed.