3 Comments

  1. avatar

    I think the Guardian has it right on this one, personally. My sense of things is that many (though I would hesitate to say ‘most’) Democrats, while split on who would be the *better* nominee, see both Clinton & Obama as good nominees. The split in the Republican camp between conservatives and moderates is considerably more serious, even if the voting totals don’t show it that way.

  2. avatar

    I read the NYT “analysis” this morning. I can’t agree with it. While the Democratic race still could turn divisive (as it seemed to be doing over SC), I don’t see it as such now. The two are not arguing over the “soul” of the party or over ideological direction. Unlike some of the candidates in the other major party…

    (And how old did you think I was, anyway?)

  3. avatar

    Any card-carrying political scientist would of cause ask the question: “How do you view the other candidate compared to your favourite?” – if a large chunk of the Democrats generally, say, prefer Obama but think HRC is okay, then the party is safe.

    If McCain carries the Republican nomination but a substantial part of the party would rather be subjected to “water-boarding” that support him actively – well…

    The issue is well-known in Danish politics: We have lots of parties and lots of movement because voters like their first choice. And their second choice. Even the third choice is cool. It is only between the Danish People’s Party and the Social Liberals that there are deep antagonisms.

    As to Professor Shugart’s age – well, I always thought that he was younger than John McCain 😛

Comments are closed.