Feeds:
Inlägg
Kommentarer

Posts Tagged ‘Presidentval’

VAL 2016 | Republikanska väljare har ett dilemma när de nu skall nominera presidentkandidat inför kommande presidentval.

hjärta hjärna

Antingen rösta mot sitt samvete för att öka sannolikheten att vinna presidentvalet. Eller rösta enligt samvetet och i slutänden riskera förlora mot Hillary Clinton.

Donald Trump, den sannolika segraren hos republikanerna, ser idag inte ut att kunna vinna mot Clinton enligt opinionsundersökningarna.

Rent logiskt borde det därför vara bättre för republikaner att lägga sin röst på en kandidat som har så stora chanser som möjligt att vinna presidentvalet. Detta speciellt när kandidaterna, åtminstone för en utomstående, inte skilja sig allt för mycket åt ideologiskt och politiskt.

Men kärnväljare röstar sällan taktiskt i interna val. Ofta är det hjärtat som styr. Detta speciellt när det handlar om att välja vem man vill skall företräda en i val.

Här skiljer sig inte amerikanska partianhängare  från partimedlemmar i Sverige som skall utse t.ex. en ny partiledare.

Få medlemmar lägger sin röst på sitt andra eller tredjehandsval bara för att öka sannolikheten att partiet skall göra bättre ifrån sig i riksdagsval eller i konkurrens med andra partiers partiledare. Det finns en viss tendens till önsketänkande när man röstar med hjärtat.

Och med tanke på att den republikanska presidentkandidaten sannolikt kommer att möta Hillary Clinton i presidentvalet borde republikanska väljare kanske vara mer intresserade av matcha fram den som har störst chans mot henne. Men icke.

En ledare i The Telegraph har tittat på republikanernas dilemma:

On Nov 8, American voters will choose his new opposite number in the White House. If the polls are to be believed, Donald Trump is poised to seize the Republican nomination. Yet the “political prediction market” – a new index that factors in the polls and other survey data – is not so sure. At present, this measure gives the populist billionaire a 34 per cent chance of winning the nomination, only a whisker ahead of Senators Ted Cruz (31 per cent) and Marco Rubio (30 per cent).

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, seems preordained to seize the Democratic crown. As for who might have the best chance of thwarting her ambition to be America’s first female president, the polls deliver an emphatic answer: almost anyone except Mr Trump. One recent survey placed Mrs Clinton 11 points clear of Mr Trump; in December her lead over the property mogul averaged 5 per cent.

Put Mrs Clinton up against Mr Cruz, however, and her advantage plummets to 0.6 per cent. Confront her with Mr Rubio and the tables are turned completely: the young Senator has an average lead of 1.6 per cent. The message for the Republicans should be clear: if you want to win, then don’t choose Mr Trump. But the party base appears in no mood to listen, so Mrs Clinton must be the favourite to enter the White House.

Trumps kampanj hoppas däremot att deras väljarpotential är betydligt större än vad som antyds i opinionsundersökningar.

Det finns undersökningar som anger att den positiva effekten för Trump kan bli liknande den som Sverigedemokraterna upplevt här. Fer röstar på partiet än vad som anges i olika väljarundersökningar. Skamfaktorn är stor även för Trump.

Read Full Post »

Adlai Stevenson 1950 Campaign

Flygplansreklam med texten ”Adlai for All” ovanför Richmond, Virginia.

Demokraten Adlai Stevenson förlorade presidentvalet 1952. Dwight D. Eisenhower blev vald till USA:s trettiofjärde president.

Bild: Tommy Pollock Photograph Collection, Libriary of Virginia.

Read Full Post »

Roger Stone, politisk rådgivare till bl.a. Rickard Nixon, Ronald Reagan och George H. W. Bush, förklarar, med utgångspunkt från valrörelsen mellan Barack Obama och John McCain, vad som krävs för att vinna ett presidentval.

You basically have to do three things to win. Define yourself. Define the other guy. The other person. And define the issues on which the election is going to be decided. In other word dominate the dialogue. If you do those three things you will win. If you fail to do those three things you lose.

Mer: Del I och del II av intervjun med Stone i TPMtv (Talking Points Memo TV). 

Read Full Post »

FRANKRIKE | Efter alla skandaler och en snöplig valförlust mot François Hollande i presidentvalet såg Nicolas Sarkozy ut att vara uträknad för gott.

Tempus 29 maj - 5 juni 2005

Men nu är han tillbaka igen efter att hans parti UMP (numera Les Républicains) segrade i departementsvalen tidigare i år.

Tidskriften Tempus, som översätter artiklar från en rad olika utländska publikationer, publicerade i maj en artikel om Sarkozys väg tillbaka.

Här har man översatt en text av Julia Amalia Heyer i Der Spiegel.

Politik är precis som att uppfostra barn, menar han. Det handlar inte om vad du säger. Det är vad du gör som räknas. Det är bättre att agera istället för att bara prata om saker, säger han.

[…]

Länge såg det ut som om hans försök att komma tillbaka till den politiska arenan inte skulle lyckas. Det verkade som om han redan hade haft sin chans och att fransmännen inte var intresserade av att ge honom en till.

Men Sarkozy, som liknar sig själv vid en boxare, duckade och svingade – och blev kvar i ringen. Med en knapp tvåtredjedels majoritet valdes han till partiledare. Han avledde motståndarnas attacker, inte med knockout-slag som förr i tiden, utan genom att helt enkelt ignorera dem. Samtidigt ökade han gradvis sin närvaro i det offentliga livet.

[…]

Sarkozys parti, Union pour un Mouvement Populaire (UMP), blev upphov till de styrande socialisternas mest förödmjukande nederlag på den franska landsbygden sedan 1992. Distrikt som i flera decennier varit i händerna på socialisterna styrs nu av borgerliga UMP.

Det är också Sarkozys förtjänst att högerextrema Nationella fronten inte fick ett ännu bättre resultat i valet. Han tycker själv att han är den ende rivalen till Nationella frontens ledare Marine Le pen som är värd att ta på allvar, och han tror att han ensam ska kunna hejda hennes framfart.

[…]

Som oppositionsledare predikar nu Sarkozy enighet inom sitt parti. Det kan låta banalt, men det är ingen lätt uppgift. Det är hans enda chans: Ju bättre hans parti lyckas, desto strakare blir han som partiledare. Jämfört med det inre arbetet inom ”UMP”, anförtror en högt uppsatt partifunktionär, är det som händer i den amerikanska serien ”House of Cards” bara ”kattpiss”.

”Tillsammans” är Sarkozys nuvarande motto. Mannen som har tillbringat hela sitt liv med att polarisera människor har upprepat budskapet så ofta under de senaste månaderna att han nu verkar tro på det själv.

Frågan är om fransmännen även kommer att tro på det i kommande presidentval.

Tidskriftsomslag: Tempus den 29 maj-5 juni 2015.

Read Full Post »

USA | När Republican Party skall utse sin presidentkandidat brukar kandidaterna tävla om vem som kan låta mest höger. Allt för att tilltala partiets kärnväljare.

The New York Times Magazine - March 22 2015 - Ben Carson

Problemet för vinnande kandidat är att han eller hon sedan måste försöka vinna väljare som inte är lika konservativa som gräsrötterna.

Detta skapar lätt bilden av att republikanerna är både principlösa och opålitliga. De blir en utmärkt måltavla för den demokratiska motståndaren under presidentvalskampanjen.

Detta var vad som hände John McCain och Mitt Romney när de stod mot Barack Obama. För att undvika att detta upprepas har partiet antagit nya tuffare regler för att styra upp nomineringsprocessen.

Frågan är bar om det kommer att fungera. Om målet var att försöka avstyra att alltför nyliberala eller konservativa kandidater skulle tycka det var mödan värt att ställa upp har man redan misslyckats.

Jeb Bush – en av partietablissemangets favoriter – har därför redan meddelat att han inte tänker låta sig luras in i samma fälla som föregångarna.

Hans strategi går ut på att inte spela på den planhalva som bara kan öppna upp för attacker från Hillary Clinton och kompani om han skulle bli nominerad.

Bush är inriktad på att det blir en lång och tuff valkampanj innan partiet utsett sin presidentkandidat.

Jim Rutenberg, The New York Times Magazine, har skrivit om partiets dilemma inför presidentvalet.

The establishment candidate has usually been a current or former governor or senator, blandly Protestant, hailing from the moderate, big-business wing of the party (or at least friendly with it) and almost always a second-, third- or fourth-time national contender — someone who had waited “his turn.” These candidates would tack predictably to the right during the primaries to satisfy the evangelicals, deficit hawks, libertarian leaners and other inconvenient but vital constituents who made up the “base” of the party. In return, the base would, after a brief flirtation with some fantasy candidate like Steve Forbes or Pat Buchanan, “hold their noses” and deliver their votes come November. This bargain was always tenuous, of course, and when some of the furthest-right activists turned against George W. Bush, citing (among other apostasies) his expansion of Medicare’s prescription drug benefit, it began to fall apart. After Barack Obama defeated McCain in 2008, the party’s once dependable base started to reconsider the wisdom of holding their noses at all.

[…]

At the 2012 convention in Tampa, a group of longtime party hands, including Romney’s lawyer, Ben Ginsberg, gathered to discuss how to prevent a repeat of what had become known inside and outside the party as the “clown show.” Their aim was not just to protect the party but also to protect a potential President Romney from a primary challenge in 2016. They forced through new rules that would give future presumptive nominees more control over delegates in the event of a convention fight.

They did away with the mandatory proportional delegate awards that encouraged long-shot candidacies. And, in a noticeably targeted effort, they raised the threshold that candidates needed to meet to enter their names into nomination, just as Ron Paul’s supporters were working to reach it. When John A. Boehner gaveled the rules in on a voice vote — a vote that many listeners heard as a tie, if not an outright loss — the hall erupted and a line of Ron Paul supporters walked off the floor in protest, along with many Tea Party members.

At a party meeting last winter, Reince Priebus, who as party chairman is charged with maintaining the support of all his constituencies, did restore some proportional primary and caucus voting, but only in states that held voting within a shortened two-week window. And he also condensed the nominating schedule to four and a half months from six months, and, for the first time required candidates to participate in a shortened debate schedule, determined by the party, not by the whims of the networks. (The panel that recommended those changes included names closely identified with the establishment — the former Bush White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, the Mississippi committeeman Haley Barbour and, notably, Jeb Bush’s closest adviser, Sally Bradshaw.)

[…]

“We don’t need a six-month slice-and-dice festival,” Priebus said when we spoke in mid-March. “While I can’t always control everyone’s mouth, I can control how long we can kill each other.”

All the rules changes were built to sidestep the problems of 2012. But the 2016 field is shaping up to be vastly different and far larger. A new Republican hints that he or she is considering a run seemingly every week. There are moderates like Gov. John Kasich of Ohio and former Gov. George Pataki of New York; no-compromise conservatives like Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania; business-wingers like the former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina; one-of-a-kinds like Donald Trump — some 20 in all, a dozen or so who seem fairly serious about it. That opens the possibility of multiple candidates vying for all the major Republican constituencies, some of them possibly goaded along by super-PAC-funding billionaires, all of them trading wins and collecting delegates well into spring.

Tidskriftsomslag: The New York Times Magazine den 22 mars 2015.

Read Full Post »

USA | Ett säkert tecken på någon funderar på att ställa upp i presidentvalet är när de plötsligt börjar tillbringa mer tid i Iowa än nödvändigt.

The New York Times Magazine November 23  2014

Republikanen Chris Christie är en av dessa politiker. Mark Leibovich, chief national correspondentThe New York Times Magazine, har följt New Jerseys guvernör på något som liknar en gryende valkampanj.

“Am I willing to put up with what might happen if I win? frågar sig Christie vid ett tillfälle.  “Losing isn’t the problem,” blir svaret. “Winning is the problem.”

Här är ett utdrag från Leibovichs artikel:

There are, in the public’s imagination, two competing notions of Chris Christie. In the first, he is a cravenly ambitious Everyman, a restless former lawyer and local officeholder who, through his law partner, became a major fund-raiser for George W. Bush and was named his campaign lawyer for New Jersey. This led to Christie’s appointment as United States attorney for the state, a post that, thanks to scores of high-profile cases involving corrupt politicians, propelled him to an unlikely victory over the incumbent governor, Jon Corzine, in 2009. In this vision of Christie, his love of the media spotlight is nearly Kardashianesque.

[…]

In the other persona, Christie is a cartoonish bully and a classic embodiment of New Jersey’s brawny ethnic politics. The state’s best-known national politicians have tended to be sober cerebral people in the tradition of Bill Bradley, Tom Kean and even Woodrow Wilson, but Christie seems to better resemble his state’s pop-culture powder kegs instead: that is, the Tony Sopranos, the Snookis and the Cake Bosses. In this vision of his character, Christie is an oversize figure of little substance, one whom Richard Ford recently referred to as the “candied-yam of a governor.”

In person, Christie defies both of these caricatures. Obscured by the ambition, loose-cannon personality and, frankly, the girth, is the fact that he is an exceptionally gifted and nuanced politician. He has a preternatural talent for appearing blunt and insistent when he is being cute and obfuscating. He is also a savvy tactician. If Barack Obama were not a politician, you could imagine him being a law professor; Mitt Romney would be in business. If Christie were not a politician, he would be perfectly exhilarated to work as a political operative.

[…]

He speaks in the clipped shorthand of the campaign managers, lobbyists and political pros who operate in state and national capitals. There is a cynical expression you hear around Washington, especially in lobbying circles, that someone “gets the joke”: They know the purpose of every situation and they know the angles, they know what people are doing and trying to do and they know how to do all this without looking as if they’re doing it. At that first meeting, Christie did not agree to be interviewed, but neither did he seem displeased when I suggested that I would be following him around through the summer and fall. Christie absolutely gets the joke.

[…]

There is a theory in presidential politics that electorates will gravitate to the candidate who represents the biggest departure from the incumbent, especially if they have grown weary of that incumbent. “That’s the argument people make to me about why I should run,” Christie told me during one of our conversations. “They’re like: ‘No one could be more the opposite of Barack Obama from a personality standpoint than you. Therefore, you’re perfect.’ ” Yet one of the more compelling aspects of a Christie candidacy would be his ability to start an overdue fight within his own party.

[….]

“Christie’s strength is that people think he is being straight with them,” said Tom Kean, a former New Jersey governor and one of Christie’s political mentors. “If he kowtows to anyone, and people stop believing that he’s saying what he means, he’s going to kill the brand.”

Tidskriftsomslag: The New York Times Magazine, 23 november 2014.

Read Full Post »

USA | Kommer hon eller kommer hon inte? Frågan ställs i nästan alla artiklar om Hillary Clinton.

The New York Times Magazine - January 26, 2014

Frågan gäller naturligtvis om hon kommer att ställa upp och försöka bli sitt partis presidentkandidat.

Att Clinton har en formidabel kampanjmaskin i ryggen om hon väljer att ställa upp i presidentvalet står utom allt tvivel.

Och till skillnad från många andra som går i samma tankar verkar Clinton ha fler allierade än vad hon rimligtvis kan behöva.

Amy Chozick i The New York Times Magazine kallar det för ”Planet Hillary”.

Unlike Barack Obama, who will leave the White House with more or less the same handful of friends he came in with, the Clintons occupy their own unique and formidable and often exhausting place in American politics. Over the decades, they’ve operated like an Arkansas tumbleweed, collecting friends and devotees from Bill Clinton’s kindergarten class to Yale Law School to Little Rock to the White House to the Senate and beyond.

[…]

This may represent Hillary Clinton’s biggest challenge for a hypothetical 2016 campaign. How can Clinton, who is 66, make American voters think about something other than her fraught personal and political past? How can she present herself as someone hungry to serve rather than as someone entitled to office? It starts, perhaps, by figuring out how to deal with many of those characters assembled along the way. “I love Barbra Streisand,” says Donna Brazile, the Democratic strategist who worked on both of Bill Clinton’s campaigns, “but Beyoncé is what’s happening now. I love Peter, Paul and Mary, but she needs to be Justin Timberlake. She can’t afford to kick people out, but she can afford to let new people come in. I realize that’s uncomfortable.” Put another way, the members of America’s most dysfunctional extended political family are about to meet a lot of young new operatives who don’t work in the same way. The Clintons may have come to power when an offensive election strategy meant digging up files of opposition research, but presidential politics are increasingly the province of number-crunching quants and code-breaking hackers. “The challenge is to create ways for people to help but also to figure out who the next generation is,” says Steve Elmendorf, deputy campaign manager on John Kerry’s 2004 presidential run. “Even David Plouffe is a generation removed. Who is the 32-year-old version of David?”

It’s an organizational conundrum that even members of Hillary Clinton’s innermost circle already concede.

[…]

For all the pieces now falling into place, the staff members new and old looking for a seat at the table, the super PACs looking to take credit and the speeches to Wall Street executives (at one session with a hedge fund in 2013, Clinton conceded that any hypothetical candidate would have to decide “toward the middle of next year”) — for all of the inevitable inevitability, perhaps the most important thing Hillary Clinton has to do is not appear like a big-footing Goliath who is finally getting her due. Six years ago, Iowans rejected Clinton, in part, because she seemed too entitled. I remember talking to caucus-goers who were turned off by the “I’m in to win” video that kicked off her candidacy and others who cringed at the loud landing of the Hill-a-Copter, which cost several thousand dollars a day in a state where voters prefer their candidates in Greyhounds.

When I asked David Axelrod what he thought Clinton had to do to win in 2016, he referred to the change she underwent during the last campaign. “She stumbled in 2007, when she was encased in a presumption of inevitability,” Axelrod said. “And she was a very good candidate in 2008 after she got knocked back. Instead of a battleship, she became a speedboat, and she got down on the ground and really, I thought, really connected to the middle-class voters and people who were struggling. People who were struggling connected with her when she looked like she was struggling.”

In her final months as secretary of state in the summer of 2012, when her approval ratings and press coverage were at all-time highs, I asked Bill Clinton what he thought of his wife’s transformed image. Over coffee at the Hilton in Nicosia, Cyprus, he told me the story of having just finished working on the McGovern campaign, his official, and intoxicating, introduction into presidential politics. He said he told Hillary he’d met some of the most prominent people of their generation, and she was by far the most gifted. “You should be in public life,” he told her back then. “She said: ‘Look at how hard-hitting I am. Nobody will ever vote for me for anything.’ ” The former president also gave some thought to her current image. “I think the country sees her the way those of us who know her see her.”

Clinton seemed to be implying that Hillary was gifted and driven and committed to public service and also was someone who genuinely liked to knock back beers in Cartagena and hit the dance floor in Pretoria. And it was sweet to hear the former president talk about his wife this way. But it also seemed like an exercise in magical thinking, as if the intervening decades of public life — with all the attendant drama and political missteps and immense power accrued and wielded — hadn’t complicated that vision of her. Hillary Clinton’s truest challenge, it would seem, is not to make the country glimpse who she was 40 years ago; it’s to recognize that for all the layers that have been added to the onion, there’s still something at the center that’s aching for the rest to be peeled away.

Läs mer: “How Our Hillary Clinton Cover Came About” av Arem Duplessis.

Tidskriftsomslag: The New York Times Magazine den 26 januari 2014.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »