My Presidential Election Prediction, 2012

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So, here is the official, no-refunds-offered Philosopher's Tree prediction of the outcome of tomorrow's 2012 US Presidential election.

I predict a win for Obama, with possibly a slightly wider margin than might be expected.

My reasons:

1. It is difficult for an incumbent to lose a Presidential election in America. Only Jimmy Carter (Dem) and George Bush Senior (Rep) have done so in the post-war era.

2. The most recent opinion polls show a slight increase in Obama's popularity in the days immediately running up to Tuesday's election.

3. Mitt Romney's policy vacillations over years will ultimately damage his electability. In a way, this is unfortunate as Romney has merely responded democratically to the mood of the voters in the different contexts he has carried out his politics: in Massachusetts (arguably the most liberal state in America) he had to endorse some fairly liberal policies in order to succeed as a Republican Governor in a Democratic state. Indeed, the Massachusetts state health plan created by Romney when he was Governor was the blueprint for Obama's controversial health reforms a few years later. Then, in order to secure the Republican nomination for President, Romney had to swing to the right to appease the Tea Party lobby who now dominate the grass roots of the party. Finally, in order to be elected President, he has had to move to the centre to appeal to more mainstream voters. This process has damaged him electorally, leaving him open to the charge of being neither one thing nor another. 

4. Romney's evasiveness on his personal income tax record, combined with one or two major media gaffes such as deriding "the 47%" of the population who he claimed depend on the government for a living, have hardened opposition to him among swing voters.

5. Late high-profile endorsements. Former Republican Secretary of State Colin Powell's backing for Obama is significant, as is that of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg - a Republican now turned Independent - who has praised the President's record on education, health care and climate change.

6. The Sandy Factor. Assuming that the power is back on in New York and New Jersey by Tuesday, the political winds arising from the recent Hurricane are likely to be blowing in Obama's direction. He does not seem to have put a foot wrong in his response to the crisis, looking every bit the competent and caring man in charge. 

        

As always, watch out for voting in Ohio, which is usually a bell weather state. If Obama wins in Pennsylvania and Virginia, it will certainly mean it is all over for Romney.  I predict a Democratic win in at least one of these latter two states. 

See you on Wenesday for the post-match analysis.

 

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Bono and Geldof on Bush's Presidency

Read an interesting piece on what has been positive about the Bush presidency, with some quotes from one or two surprising people:

“President Bush has every reason to be proud of what he and so many others have accomplished in Africa. From AIDS treatment once thought impossible, to millions of bednets to keep kids from dying of a mosquito bite, to new African jobs created with trade policy, to billions in old debts erased. And back in Washington, a political shift has taken place with Democrats and Republicans working shoulder to shoulder to partner with the people of Africa as they work to lift their continent out of poverty, putting 29 million children in school in the last five years, with the help of debt cancellation. These are accomplishments the next President must build on. It’s true that American generosity is on the rise, but it’s also true that despite recent set backs in Kenya, there’s a new Africa to match it. I hope that the next President iwll get to experience first hand this beautiful and entrepreneurial continent that is rising to all of the challenges being sent its way.

Bono

Mr. Bush “has done more than any other president so far…This is the triumph of American policy really....It was probably unexpected of the man. It was expected of the nation, but not of the man, but both rose to the occasion.. ... What’s in it for [Mr. Bush]? Absolutely nothing,”

"I'm pissed off” at the press for their failure to report on this good news story.

Bob Geldof


The full article with further quotes can be found here.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Bush Sewerge Proposal Panned

Plans to rename a sewerage works after the outgoing president were defeated in a public ballot in San Francisco on Tuesday.

The proposal, previously reported on this blog, would have seen the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant renamed the George W Bush Sewage Plant.

Voters rejected the proposal by 69% to 31% in the ballot, the outcome of which is mandatory under California State Law.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Bush Widens America's Afghan War, a Throwback to Cambodia

News that the US Joint Chiefs of Staff are calling for American troops to pursue "extremists" across the Afghan boarder into Pakistan reminds me of the failed US policy in Vietnam when, faced with an unwinnable war, the decision was taken in 1970 to widen its scope into neighbouring Cambodia.

As today in Afghanistan, the situation in south east Asia in 1970 appeared to justify the initiative. Viet Cong forces had extended the Ho Chi Minh Trail into Laos and the Cambodian capital Phnom Penh was under threat of communist attack. American forces were vulnerable to attacks originating from within Cambodia and on that basis Commander of US forces in South Vietnam General Creighton Abrams argued for the elimination of their bases on the Cambodian side of the boarder.

Without consulting of informing the Cambodian government of Lon Nol, President Nixon agreed with his General's advice and ordered 20,000 American troops and warplanes across the boarder, announcing on a televised broadcast on April 28th that the future of world peace depended on America's success in Cambodia.

38 years later, and illustrating the maxim that there is nothing new under the sun, we are faced with an American military commander (Admiral Mike Mullen) calling publicly for a military strategy that covers "both sides of the boarder" between Afghanistan and Pakistan, announcing to the House Armed Services Committee that

"In my view, these two nations are inextricably linked in a common insurgency....We can hunt down and kill extremists as they cross over the border from Pakistan... but until we work more closely with the Pakistani government to eliminate the safe havens from which they operate, the enemy will only keep coming."

One can only hope that President Bush resists this call in the final months of his administration - an initiative that will plunge America's only "ally" in the region into complete turmoil and dissipate the remnants of any good will that may exist among the Pakistani population. The evidence so far gives little hope for that outcome:

• in July, President Bush approved orders enabling US Special Operations forces to conduct ground operations in Pakistan without the prior approval of the Pakistan government
• since April, missile strikes have been carried out on positions within Pakistan, attributed to coalition forces or CIA drones based in Afghanistan - strikes that have killed both Pakistani civilians and militants
• A raid in South Waziristan last week left 15 people dead and prompted Pakistan's army chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani to strongly criticise the raids and insist that there was no deal allowing foreign troops to conduct operations inside the country: "The sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country will be defended at all cost," he added in a statement subsequently backed by the country's Premier Yousaf Raza Gilani.

It seems to be a principle of imperialism that when losing a war, the "arrogance of power" (to quote Senator J. William Fulbright) dictates an expansion of that same war. The Senator's observation from 1966 still seems relevant in 2008:

"Power tends to confuse itself with virtue and a great nation is particularly susceptible to the idea that its power is a sign of God's favor, conferring upon it a special responsibility for other nations — to make them richer and happier and wiser, to remake them, that is, in its own shining image. Power confuses itself with virtue and tends also to take itself for omnipotence."

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.