Note: Apologies for the lack of posts in the last while. UCLA is on the quarter system, which means early June is the end of quarter (which means deadlines … so I’ve been rather busy).

***

Consider the latest poll of 2008 Presidential candidates:

Among Democrats, Hillary Clinton is leading Barack Obama 33% to 22%. Al Gore (undeclared) has 15% and John Edwards has 8%.

Among Republicans, Rudy Giuliani is leading Fred Thompson (undeclared) 27% to 21%. John McCain has 12% and Mitt Romney has 10%.

But look at the head-to-head match-ups. Giuliani would easily defeat Clinton 49% to 39%. Yet Obama would beat Giuliani 46% to 41% and even Edwards would beat Giuliani 46% to 43%.

To me, it looks like Democrats are placing their bet on the wrong horse (Clinton). Clinton is favoured among Democrats but would lose against the top Republican. Yet the #2 rated Democrat (and even the #4 rated) would beat the #1 rated Republican. This suggests that Obama and Edwards have a much greater potential to draw swing voters and Republicans than does Clinton. In fact, Clinton is such a polarizing figure it appears that in a match-up with Giuliani, some Democrats would vote for Giuliani. Likewise, it shows Giuliani has weaknesses against character candidates like Obama and Edwards.

I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again. Americans vote by character. If it’s Clinton vs. Giuliani, Giuliani will win, not because he is “better” than Clinton, but because he has stuck to his principles, favoring gun control, gay rights and access to abortion within a party that favours none of these. On the other hand, Clinton has morphed into a new person over the last couple years (moving away from leftist positions in order to appeal to centrists and Republicans). In both cases, Clinton and Giuliani have had trouble convincing their respective party bases (the far right and far left) of their credentials, which is why neither has a commanding lead.

Clinton’s chameleon act the past couple years may make her more appealing to those on the right, but in doing so, she has opened herself up to criticism that she is willing to compromise values in order to win. That won’t fly with your average American. Americans want someone with character who they can trust. Americans vote with their gut, their emotions more so than differences in policy (which are pretty small these days). I don’t see Clinton able to win on trust and emotion. Obama can, which why I think the Democrats would be wise to consider not what the party establishment wants, but rather what the American people want.

Is George W. Bush the Worst President in 100 Years?

By Gregory D. Morrow

Is George W. Bush the Worst President in 100 Years? It appears that many presidential historians think so, according to Macleans (acknowledging that academics tend not to like Republican presidents generally, but this one in particular). Bush’s personal charm aside, there is been plenty of evidence to back up that claim. But I think it is far too early to make an assessment. Here are some of the highlights of the article:

1. Presidential Historians:
- 80% said Bush’s first term was a failure.
- more than half said Bush was worst president since Great Depression.
- more than one-third said Bush was worst president in 100 years.
- 11% said Bush was worst president ever.

2. Unfunded Liabilities:
- The shortfall in social security and Medicare is $43 trillion (with a ‘t’).
- Added to this is the $18 trillion cost of Bush’s prescription drug benefit.

3. Spending:
- has increased $683 billion per year under Bush.
- By 2014, four things — interest on debt, defense, Social Security and Medicare — will consume entire U.S. budget.

4. Fiscal Balance Sheet:
- National debt has increased from $4.7 trillion to $8.4 trillion in 5 years under Bush.
- Clinton left a $86.4 billion surplus; Bush is forecasting $400 billion deficits for the foreseeable future.
- not in article, but take a look at this graph courtesy of the UUs, which I find revealing:

(more…)