Translated material
Who is Mr.\/Mrs.America?
The first two stages of the rally called "election of the President of the United States" have been overcome. The results are the exact opposite of what experts and sociologists predicted.
The first two stages of the rally called "election of the President of the United States" have been overcome. The results are the exact opposite of what experts and sociologists predicted.
Evgenia Albats
Neither the caucuses in Iowa nor the primaries in New Hampshire made it possible to identify an obvious contender for the role of candidate for the presidency of either the Democrats or the Republicans. Specialists in electoral preferences, not to mention political technologists, were put to shame. In racially "white" Iowa (whites make up more than 95% of the population here), located in the very conservative Midwest of the United States, which is often called the "other country" on the East and West coasts, the country of red necks - "red necks", that is, white hard workers, not particularly inclined to liberalism, the winner was an African-American with a Muslim name - a Democrat, a senator from the state of Illinois and a graduate of the law school of the liberal Harvard University, Barack Obama, about whom few had even heard of three years ago. He was also predicted a clear victory in the second round - in the primaries in the northern state of the East Coast of New Hampshire. And back in mid-December, polls showed that Obama was ahead of his main rival, Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton of New York by 10-12 percent. But in New Hampshire, Mrs. Clinton beat him by just over two percent (7,479 votes). Back in December, the Republicans considered former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, known for his liberal - for a Republican - views on social policy issues, and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, a wealthy and successful businessman who promises to make running the government (and therefore spending taxpayer money) as efficiently as he did in business. However, former Baptist pastor and former governor of the small southern state of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee, won in Iowa, having unexpectedly announced his claims to the White House only last fall. Back in December, American newspapers wrote about him as a politician who “has no money, no organized political machine, no understandable and implementable political platform, no knowledge of international affairs - nothing but deep religiosity and populist views,” and now about him is spoken of as a very likely candidate for the Republican Party in the November 2008 elections. In contrast, the popular Rudolph Giuliani, who became a symbol of American resistance to terrorism after the events of September 11, 2001, received only an embarrassing fourth place from Republican voters in the New Hampshire elections and, it is believed, most likely dropped out of a serious fight. At the time of signing the issue, the 71-year-old veteran of the Vietnam War, Senator McCain, was enlisted as a leader from the US Republicans: a month ago he was called nothing more than a "political corpse."
$ limits
Despite the well-known stereotype that money is the main factor in any, and especially American, politics, it turned out that the effectiveness of green banknotes has its limits. Yes, indeed, considering that, according to current laws in the United States, the amount of one person's contribution to the applicant's fund cannot exceed $ 2,300, the amount of funds raised shows how many people are willing to invest the dollars they earn in a candidate, hoping that these investments will not be lost, and perhaps even bring dividends in the form of responsible and thoughtful public policy. And yet, as the January elections showed, the dollar can be beaten by such seemingly phantoms as views, values, and beliefs. Republican Romney spent about $6 million in Iowa, and defeated Huckabee there, who had only $327,000 at his disposal. Hillary Clinton's electoral fund, raised in no small measure by her husband's efforts, is the largest among all candidates from both parties - $ 90.9 million. Barack Obama has $10 million less, and many see his chances better. Just the other day, John Kerry, the US Democratic presidential candidate, in 2004 called on his party colleagues in South Carolina, where the primaries are scheduled for January 26, to vote not for Mrs. Clinton, but for Barack Obama. The Republicans have the same “strangeness” with the money issue: Senator McCain’s fund has half as many millions of dollars than the former Massachusetts governor and businessman ($32.1 against Romney’s 62.8 million and Giuliani’s $47.3 million), and he is much older, has been ill with cancer, because of the injury he cannot comb his hair himself. But no, the polls show that the preferences of Republican Americans are on his side so far. Maybe in this intrigue, in the absence of predestination and the institution of succession, is the beauty of normal democratic politics?
Strobe Talbott - Evgenia Albats
Who still has a chance to reach the final of the main world elections in 2008? Strobe Talbott, president of one of the most authoritative Washington research institutes Brookings Institute, former US Deputy Secretary of State in the Clinton administration, spoke about this in an interview with The New Times.
I understand that I propose to tell fortunes on the coffee grounds, and nevertheless: whose victory - Obama or Hillary - do you expect based on the results of "Super Tuesday" on February 5? 1
Well, before that, there will still be primaries in South Carolina ...
And there Hillary and Obama go, according to the polls, nose to nose - with a difference of 1 percent ...
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
I will answer you with a phrase that belongs to the famous Soviet politician Vyacheslav Molotov, who, when asked about democracy sometime in the late forties, replied: “Democracy is a very good system. The only problem with it is you never know what the outcome will be." The race this time is very tough. She is just a classic example of how unpredictable democracy can be. Without exception, every pundit I know, and I know a great many, has said that Hillary has no chance of winning the New Hampshire primary. “She burned out,” they said exactly. She won nonetheless. Now I'm flying to South Carolina, where there will be the next primaries: peer reviews - Obama will undoubtedly beat Hillary there. However, the first results, and in relation to candidates from both parties - who expected Huckabee to win in Iowa? — have shown that predictions are not working well today, both in terms of state primaries, and in terms of who from which party will ultimately be nominated.
And yet, who is more likely to become a Democratic candidate: Clinton or Obama?
Last week I was in Las Vegas: quite experienced people there were betting in the primaries - they lost money. Hillary has a powerful, well-organized political machine, a lot of money, a lot of support. On the other hand, Obama has charisma, passion, support for young voters, and Americans are tired of politicians who have been sitting in Washington for a long time. In this sense, representatives of the Democratic Party have an obvious advantage over the Republicans, many Americans are so exhausted by the eight years of Bush's rule that they say to themselves: a new person must come to the White House, who has nothing to do with the former, as they would say in Russia, nomenklatura. And these sentiments are also in the treasury of Barack Obama.
Iowa showed that Senator Obama is supported primarily by young voters - 60% of those who cast their votes for him (or, more precisely, raised their hands at a meeting of representatives) under the age of 25, while 45% of those who voted for Senator Clinton are people who for 65. And only 20% of respondents indicated that experience in the field of public administration, in international affairs matters in choosing a candidate. New Hampshire gave similar results: as in Iowa, Obama was voted by "independents", that is, voters not affiliated with any of the parties, as well as residents of university campuses. Does this mean that the Americans have already decided on the dilemma of political experience vs. desire for change?
One of the main distinguishing features of this presidential race is the interest in the elections of young voters. Americans in general, frankly speaking, do not take an active part in the elections. But young people are not at all good: in 2000, only 12% of those who voted were in the 18-25 age group. And this is also the trump card of 46-year-old Barack Obama.
Yes, but on the side of Hillary is the still incredibly popular 42nd President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton: sociology in New Hampshire showed that he was 10 points ahead of both his wife and Obama in popularity. In other words, the voter may decide that by voting for Hillary, he actually has a chance to return Bill to the White House. Not this way?
New Hampshire surprised many people, including this data. In the 1992 primaries, Bill Clinton was only second there. I say: this is a completely unpredictable race - in the same Iowa, apparently, the presence of her husband at least did not help, if not hurt.
However, there is no one factor that would determine political preferences. The desire to see a new face in Washington, yes, but experience too, yes. The man who walks into the office in the west wing of the White House in January 2008 will have to face problems that few of his predecessors have faced: Iraq, the Middle East, terrorism. So experience is important. But no less important are personality traits and what is called electoral power. Actually, the primaries are just a test of electability: it happens that a politician seems good in all objective indicators, but the voters nevertheless give him to a competitor.
That's it - about being elected. Iowa is an almost racially white midwestern US state. Nevertheless, the African American Obama outperformed both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards there. Does this mean that the racial issue - at least in electoral preferences - has ceased to be a factor?
It's embarrassing, but no, you can't say that. Skin color, and not only it, still plays a role. And slavery, and the civil war - all this was in our history and is still not forgotten. That is why if an African American is elected president of the United States, however, if a woman is elected president, this will have an extraordinary impact on America, and indeed on the world. But it would be a mistake to think that all Americans are ready for such a choice.
Is the majority necessary for victory ready?
Don't forget, there is another factor that has already been used by Democrat opponents: Obama is an Islamic name, his father was a Muslim, and his name was Hussein. And many are suspicious of a person with such roots. And not only in the USA. But in Russia? But it must be said that Obama campaigns brilliantly: not only in how he minimizes, perhaps, negative attitude towards himself, but also in how he unobtrusively uses the same factors in order to emphasize that only such a person can bring America needs reforms, is able to change politics, finally, that only in America is it possible for a person with his skin color and his name to be elected president of the United States.
However, some interlocutors in Washington are hinting that Obama's victory in Iowa, and a possible one in the next primaries in South Carolina, is causing concern in the main headquarters of the Democrats - in the US Democratic National Committee. An African American Democrat cannot defeat a white Republican. Is it possible that the Democrats will have some new horse? Or, for example, the old (former vice president in the Clinton administration) - Al Gore? They say they are negotiating with him, is that so?
Perhaps there are people who believe that Obama or Hillary is not elected. But it's hard for me to imagine that someone else will appear now. Al Gore is almost 100% out of the question. February 5th is less than a month away from Super Tuesday. After these primaries, it will be more or less clear who will be the Democratic nominee. Although the final decision will be made at the convention (congress) of the party this summer.
John Edwards (another Democratic candidate and former senator from North Carolina) - does he still have a chance after third place in Iowa and New Hampshire?
Edwards' campaign is built on two transient conditions: first, that Barack and Hillary will destroy each other; the second is the class struggle. Edwards acts as a defender of the interests of the middle class against the rich. It seems to me that this is not working well in America today: many Americans are fed up with the harshly confrontational nature of Washington politics and are more likely to vote for whoever is ready to be a unifier. Al Gore, by the way (in the 2000 election), won the majority of the popular vote but lost to Bush in the Electoral College.
Is it possible that some new candidate will be proposed by the delegates at the convention (congress) of the Democratic Party?
Unlikely. That is, of course, some force majeure circumstances may arise - for example, the death of a candidate who won the primaries. And in the history of the United States there were nominees and presidents who did not participate in the primaries. But this was the case in the 1940s and 1960s, when the political machines of the parties, their congresses, were of decisive importance, and it was they who nominated candidates for elections. It's finished. The Democratic nominee will be known after February 5, and certainly not later than spring, that is, even before the convention.
To rephrase the question: what factor - gender (female) or skin color (African American) can have a big negative impact on Democrats, given that the opponent - a representative of the Republican Party - is unequivocally a white male?
Color of the skin. Women are in the majority and, as both the Senate and the New Hampshire primary have shown, many of them are ready to cast their votes for Hillary. And I have no doubt that Hillary will be a great president.
Even though the return of the Clintons to the White House will make us talk about the practice of dynastic or, if you like, family rule in the United States. First the Bushes, then the Clintons...
This has happened before in the history of the United States: the father and son of the Adams, the cousins of the Roosevelts ... I repeat once again: the preferences of voters are based on many and different factors. For example, who will be nominated as vice president plays a very important role. John F. Kennedy would never have been elected president if it had not been for the conservative from the South, Lyndon Johnson, who was second under him.
And who can be nominated in conjunction with Senator Hillary Clinton?
Perhaps Ohio Governor Ted Strickland is a state of fundamental importance in the Midwest. Maybe Mark Warner, the former Democratic governor of Virginia, though he is now a Senate candidate, maybe Bilsake Richardson, the former governor of Iowa. "Second" is key.
Republican Party: who?
Until a few weeks ago, I thought it would be Mitt Romney (former governor of Massachusetts). But he's still losing.
The appearance of former Arkansas Gov. Huckabee among the Republicans - was that a surprise to you?
Absolutely. And I was amazed that he won in Iowa. But even a month ago McCain was declared by everyone to be a "dead" candidate. And today I think that it is quite possible that he will become the Republican candidate: he looks stronger than his competitors. True, there is one little thing - age ...
Former New York City Mayor Giuliani - Does he still have a chance?
It seems to me that a little. However, I repeat, in my memory this is the most unpredictable and therefore the most interesting race for the presidency of the United States. Only one thing is known for sure: on November 4, 2008, the US presidential elections will be held in America, and in January 2009, someone - she or he - will take the office in the White House.
__________________
1 Primaries of both parties will be held on February 5 in 20 states of the country, which will elect 40% of the total number of delegates to the conventions (national conventions) of both the US Democratic and Republican parties.