First Drafts - The Prospect magazine blog

7 Responses

1. me says:

   January 7, 2008 at 2:11 pm

   It is “neither nor”. Bad analysis by th way.
2. KP says:

   January 7, 2008 at 6:40 pm

   Sloppy thinking, Dave. The GOP has been running away from black, Hispanic, and non-Baptist voters for years, while staking its claim to an increasingly small plurality of southern white males. This is the year the shrinking GOP base is revealed: no longer the wizard of Oz, but merely a little man behind the curtain. Who is the GOP gonna turn to when their “base” has become a permanent electoral minority?
3. William Sentance says:

   January 8, 2008 at 11:03 am

   Your argument seems to take the form. Only 1 out of 6 winning democrats have been from the north. Clinton and Obama are both associated with the North. Therefore, neither Obama nor Clinton can win the election. This is a weak argument based on a number of assumptions and flaws of reasoning.
   Firstly, the population of the north is apporximately one third of the total population of America, so we could expect one third of the candidates to be from northern states. From such a small sample size, the actual result of 1 out of 6, especially when other results have been so close, does not seem altogeter unlikely.
   However, even if this statistical explanation is ignored, it certainly may be true that during the previous fifty years for varying reasons, the majority of the united states (ie. the other two thirds who do not live within the northern states) were more inclined towards supporting a candidate from the South. However, how this can support the view that there remains an antipathy towards northern candidates in the current political climate is unclear. Whether Obama’s promises of change and in particular unity are rhetoric or not, they inspire people into unifying and supporting his campaign regardless of his or their background. Furthemore, it is not just Clinton’s associations and background that have made her previously seemingly inevitable campaign falter slightly but rather the strength of Obama’s non-partisan support and appeal.

   Perhaps, if we were unaware of the current political climate, disillution with the status quo and desire for perceptable change (that both Clinton and Obama epitomise) this analysis might mark a certain inevitability. But despite relatively improbable statistics from the previous 50 years, the conclusion proposed by the author that makes a Obama or Clinton victory impossible, is invald.
4. Davos Newbies » Blog Archive » The California primary says:

   January 9, 2008 at 7:23 pm

   [...] don’t usually read the UK’s Prospect for analysis of American politics. (This item on why neither Clinton nor Obama can win the presidency the other day was particularly woeful and [...]
5. Lisa says:

   April 9, 2008 at 9:24 pm

   What A dumb thing to say
6. Earl says:

   May 2, 2008 at 12:14 am

   If Clinton wins the nomination, Democrats will win, if Obama wins, they will lose.
7. Ami says:

   May 28, 2008 at 9:37 am

   Thats not what the numbers are saying. It is actually the reverse. If Hillary wins the nomination, the Democrats will lose, If Obama wins, then they have a better chance at winning the presidency. Look it up, its splattered all over. Republicans see her as easy to beat and i don’t blame them.