American Popularity SURGING???? (0.00 / 0)

The phraseology deconstructs itself.  No disassembly required.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:15:19 PM CDT

Any popularity gains (0.00 / 0)

Stand to vanish if McCain wins.  There is enough international cynicism now about Americans (as opposed to American elites) that if they reject the black or female candidate in favour of another Republican war loving white male, it will merely confirm the whole exercise as a sham in many eyes.  A PR stunt.

Seriously, re-electing George Bush was actually a giant blow to the world's perception of Americans themselves.  Prior to that many could console themselves knowing he had actually lost the popular vote.  

I'll offer no empirical proof of this either, but that's my gut read.  Could be off.

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:22:32 PM CDT

I have been working with (4.00 / 1)

a lot of Germans and Australians lately.

There is no end to their interest in the primary fight.

In one sense I am learning that the US is far more democratic in how we choose party leaders than other countries.  The idea of a primary election is simply not something that really exists outside of the US (though Canada may have something similar).  US parties are far more open in our choice of candidates, and as people learn this they are impressed.

It is absolutely helping our image abroad.  

---

by: fladem @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:35:23 PM CDT

Canada (0.00 / 0)

We have party leadership races, which are evolving towards a norm of one-person-one-vote by Party members.  In the past they were picked by nominating conventions of selected/elected party delegates, so it is becoming more democratic.

It's akin to a national closed party primary.  Also, Canadian parties have membership fees ($10/year for the Liberals and Conservatives, don't know about NDP) so there is a barrier to entry.

For me, I have mixed feelings about the US system.  The cross over voting and disjointed nature of the voting I am not a fan of.  It's debatable anyway.

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:42:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The main difference (0.00 / 0)

is the direct election of candidates not only for President, but for Congress.  I do not believe any other country in the World has direct elections to pick party nominees for the equivalent of Congress.

US parties are much more open than parties in other countries.

I know Canada picks party leaders in events that look very similar to an American Party convention. I wasn't sure, though, how the delegates were chosen.  Thank you for the additional detail.  

---

by: fladem @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 16:14:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Remember after the 2004 election the headline in the UK (0.00 / 0)

How Can 50 Million Americans Be So Dumb?

Since so far 30 million Dems have voted in the primaries lets hope in November theres enough of us smart Americans to counteract the 50 million dumb ones who got us - and the entire world -  into this mess

John McCain vetoes every Environmental Bill already.

---

by: dotcommodity @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 15:03:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

i tend to think (0.00 / 0)

That while "elites" (and bloggers like me) enjoy a good piece of theater, especially one involving Great American Myths, most people that we might have particular reason to want to love us respond more to things like our continuing use of torture and unjust imprisonment and our continuing, indiscriminate military presence in their countries.

Steve's post reminds me of the New York Times columnists' love of discussing "the Arab Street" -- a handy way to make ourselves feel good about ourselves while ignoring our nation's moral callousness. "Our cable news is inspiring" is the new "the next six months will be decisive". Electing a black man, or a woman, will be meaningless unless progressives will force them to do something different from what we've been doing for the last eight years.

---

by: sdedeo @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:53:47 PM CDT

You Mean Maggie Thatcher WASN'T The Second Coming of Mary Wollstonecraft? (0.00 / 0)

I'm shocked! Shocked!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 13:15:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Few perceive themselves as effected (0.00 / 0)

Just under 1% of American bear the burden of fighting this egregious war. Without a media providing truthful coverage of the horrors this war is exacting, many of us forget. But we all bear the financial burden. If we can define what that cost is, and apply it to each town or individual, it becomes something that the average citizen can relate to The National Priority Project will define what that cost is to your community. For instance, our small town (p.4500), has just discovered that we are paying around $800,000 annually. This is their website I urge folks to find out what the true cost of the war is to your community and let it be known through letters to local editors or town meeting.

---

by: inmymindseye @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 13:30:00 PM CDT

1%? (0.00 / 0)

It is just under 0.1%, right, just one in a thousand?  Close to 300,000* in Iraq with a U.S. population of about 300,000,000.

Was this a math error or are you counting a large support structure that adds a level of magnitude?

* 250,000 in initial invasion, about half that now.  I'm just guessing that turnover and new recruits gives the additional 50,000.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 14:07:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

0.1% is correct (0.00 / 0)

Thanks Mark, what I meant to say was fewer than 1% of us are physically effected by the war. But your number is more accurate.

This comment was meant to be posted in the "Building Public Support for the War" post.

Double duh.

---

by: inmymindseye @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 15:10:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

immediate families (0.00 / 0)

If we assume 5 or 6 loved ones for each soldier deployed overseas fearing for their safety, the people bearing the burden expands from just the soldiers themselves.

Whichever way though I think the general point is that the hard costs of this war are only felt particularly by a very narrow band of the population, whether 1% or 0.1%.

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 15:38:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]