I’m sure how you saw today’s 2nd debate between the US presidential candidates depends on where you stand. I didn’t think it was even close. To me, Romney floundered and appeared untrustworthy, arrogant and somewhat entitled/spoilt-bratty. But I’m sure others judged the whole thing differently.
Let me be clear: I want Obama to win. He deserves to have a second term, in my view, although he is not perfect and has in some respects been a disappointment.*
Mitt Romney strikes me as a glib liar and just leaves me cold. Brrr!
(But I don’t get a vote, so he can relax.)
– P
pic: Doug Mills The New York Times Mitt Romney and President Obama during the debate, their second, Tuesday night at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y. via Chris Heller, The Atlantic
*Update: Reflecting on it, I felt the same way about John Key’s administration in 2011. Deserved another shot, and, as I said at the time, seemed likely to get it. (But gee, it ended up being close!)
Peter,
“Reflecting on it, I felt the same way about John Key’s administration in 2011. Deserved another shot, and, as I said at the time, seemed likely to get it. (But gee, it ended up being close!)”
The 2001 NZ election was a massacre under any other electoral system, at National 47% against Labour 27%. I cannot remember such a wide margin between the two largest parties in any election in any country in history (ie. discounting elections of Mugabe or Saddam that weren’t real democracies).
The fact that the biggest electoral shellacking for Labour in history results in a close election says more about the failings of the “tail wags the dog” MMP system than it does about the 2011 election, in my view.
Rgds,
*p*
Well, we see that differently.
With respect, you’re living in the past if you decry MMP for some electoral preference resembling First Past The Post — which history has demonstrated in NZ to be profoundly unrepresentative, bordering on corrupt, as we have discussed here before.
When I said ‘close’ I was talking about the all-important parliamentary majority required to actually govern. For instance, Winston Peters’ proposed bill to widen the focus of Reserve Bank failed yesterday by 61:60. That’s close.
Share of the Party vote is, of course, an important if not vital goal. But National’s share of the Party vote did not garner it an outright majority.
Government by coalition is the new normal.
You’ll have to adjust.
Re your comment:
“I cannot remember such a wide margin between the two largest parties in any election in any country in history …”
Really? If you’re wanting to cite shellackings, let’s take a look.
How about National’s 2002 result under Bill English? 20.93% (Labour 41.26)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_general_election,_2002#Summary_of_results
compared to Labour’s 27.48% in 2011 (National 47.31)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_general_election,_2011#Electorate_results
Don’t those margins seem similar?
Left wing apologists also point to an historically low voter turnout in 2011. (“Lowest turnout since 1887”) Is that a significant factor to you?
– P
Don’t worry Poormastery when it comes to this topic you are answering to a bigot.
Numbers and History won’t budge him.
And by the way Obama will win with the same massacre. And he does not deserve to. Its more than fact the Republicans in my view have not put up a good candidate, I agree Peter, Romneys out of depth when it comes to the Obama Preaching. Ron Paul was the best chance they had.
Peter,
Thanks for reminding me – 2002 was a massacre the other way, that I had forgotten. Of course, I was overseas at the time.
I presume that in your terms Labour failing to get over 50% alone in 2002 and having to find coalition partners would constitute a “close election”?
Somehow I think the Party whose support has collapsed shouldn’t take heart from the fact that MMP makes forming a government difficult and unstable for the major party. Dismissing the loss in this fashion could show that lessons haven’t been learnt?
I much prefer FPP to MMP, although I think that the Australian system is better than both. MMP is about giving disproportionate power to extremists such as the Greens, in my view.
Rgds,
*p*
I don’t see the NZ Greens as extremists, nor puppets of an international conspiracy as some in the National Party apparently do.
Nor do I, obviously, agree with Matthew Hooton’s comedic turn as Joe McCarthy alerting us to Russel Norman’s ‘highly disciplined Marxist-Leninist infiltration’ of the Greens (http://www.thepaepae.com/a-rich-green-comedy-performance-from-matthew-hooton/19357/)
At 11% of the vote, the Greens are part of the political landscape. Get used to it. NZ First at 6.8% — well, I’m not so sure. But ACT, United Future — aren’t they the extremists with the ‘disproportionate’ influence you decry?
You really will have to shop lamenting the change to the Electoral system and harkening back to the ‘good old days’ of dictatorship by executive cabinet of the Muldoon era. Believe me, the disenfranchisement of ‘minor parties’ under that system was obscene.
I can lend you my copy of Geoffrey Palmer’s book Unbridled Power if you like.
Of course you are Pro Greens because you a Shill to Labour and they are their current Allies.
Interesting you used Muldoon as an example and not Lange or Mike Moore
And Peter, PM is (correct me if Im wrong) stating the Green extremists values based on their Policy’s not their popularity.
Numbers have nothing to do with Extremism.
There’s often not a lot of meat on the bones of your criticism of what’s discussed here at The Paepae, Craig.
You seem to perceive any criticism of political/government figures or their actions as evidence of some sort of un-admitted ‘bias’ or active political partisanship on my part. (This despite a profound lack of overtly ‘Labour shill’-like commentary here, which seems to cut against your thesis, it seems to me.)
Of course you’re entitled to your views. And I acknowledge the real power of the phenomenon where observers like yourself draw an inference from the ‘choice of targets’ — but an inference is all it is.
It would help your argument if you actually took the time to lay out a case rather than merely fling anaemic, vacuous epithets like ‘Labour shill’.
Here’s an instruction video:
– P
The Greens’ electoral support of 11% is more than half the support National got in 2002.
With that level of public support, they can no longer be considered ‘extremists’ in my view — not in policy nor as a 0%-1% fringe party like wannabe neo-liberals ACT or pseudo religious United Future or Colin Craig’s Conservatives.
– P
Peter, you say:
“With that level of public support (11%), they can no longer be considered ‘extremists’ in my view…”
Of course, ACT got 6 – 7% a few times, but they admittedly didn’t make the magic 11% respectability threshold.
Irrespectively, Adolf Hitler received 43% of the vote in 1933, and I think he was an extremist, so I find myself disagreeing with your definition of “extremism”, in any case.
A party which effectively rejects technology, progress and innovation,
and advocates a return to stone age subsistence living, is about as extreme as you can get.
Even Labour doesn’t seem to want to form a government with the Greens.
Returning NZ to year zero Pol Pot style, with the associated struggle for survival involving digging the earth with your bare hands, is not mainstream economics. It’s extremist stuff.
Rgds,
*p*
That’s a fairly ‘hot’ response poormastery. With respect your (implied?) comparison of the NZ Greens to Pol Pot’s murderous totalitarianism is ridiculous.
I think it’s useful to take a long view of political influence.
Your sarcastic lament: “Of course, ACT got 6 – 7% a few times, but they admittedly didn’t make the magic 11% respectability threshold”understates the influence that bunch of foaming-at-the-mouth wild-eyed radicals and wreckers (just kidding) has actually had.
A ginger group, by definition, must be at one end of a political spectrum (on at least one issue) — consider the enormous impact of the no-compromise fringe group the Tea Party on the generally consensus-seeking GOP.
But in normal circumstances, political power — governing power, not just influence — lies at the centre, except in times of extremis …
Now Poo old son .. you arent getting antisemitic by implication by mentioning adolf and his percentages are you??
We cant have that …