how does the world outside USA feel about our elections?

just out of curiousity, since there has been so much speculation, what do you SLers outside the US think about the presidential election? is there one candidate you prefer over the other?

There's an election going on?

Seriously Damien,
I would like to hear the Brit reaction to Kerry's not-so-subtle demeaning of the allies in recent comments.

I'm a Brit and what I don't understand, or at least it seems to me, is that only those with squillions of dollars, or at least financial backing of that order, have an opportunity to run for President, so you aren't necessarily going to get the best man/woman for the job, whichever party you support. There must be a lot of good people in the US who would make a superb President but will never get near it. Please tell me if I am wrong in this assumption?

We get a fair bit of coverage on the BBC TV news and website about this election and other American issues, plus of course the newspapers. From what I have read, I can't really feel enthusiastic about either candidate, but I do feel Bush got in last time because of the Florida count - his cousin(?) was Governor i believe. That must have helped lol. In this country we often vote for the party with the manifesto with which we are most in tune. Sometimes we vote for that party, in spite of who the leader is, simply because of their policies. Does that happen in the US? I'm guessing not as much as you are appointing a President and we are voting for a Prime Minister and his Government to run the country. Mind you if Blair had his way he would be President of the UK. That would be the day I emigrate.

I would be interested if you could reply to some of my questions.

Thanks

Bush's brother, Jeb Bush, is the governor of the state of Florida.

We only really have two main parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. There are lots of other, smaller "third parties" which get very little attention.

Generally, the Democratic Party is viewed as liberal. Democrats generally favor higher taxes, yet more government programs for the people. Democrats are usually poor, and usually minorities. As always, there are exceptions.

Generally, the Repbulican party is viewed as conservitive. Republicans generally favor lower taxes, yet less government programs for the people. Democrats are generally wealthy. One main exception to this rule is rural America (like, the southern states (NOT Florida, btw.)). For some reason, the poor rural areas of America love the Republican party, which makes no sense, since the Democrats seem like a better choice for those people...

I consider myself to be a Democrat. I vote based on my political and social beliefs, as well as the specific candidate. However, honestly, in the presidential election, my vote doesn't count. My state (New York) *will*, without a doubt, pick John Kerry. I have absolutely no problem with that, but, I would if my state was going to pick Bush.

I appologize if I offended anyone with my generalizations of both parties -- or with anything else, for that matter.

-EDIT- To answer your first question, yes, money is needed to become President. Well, actually, you just need publicity. If you can find a way to get free publicity, great.

It does take a lot of money to get noticed during an election. This one has been particularly expensive. However, for a candidate that makes it so far, there is a "presidential election fund" that's managed by the government that all candidates can tap out of.

Now, the thing is though, most of the money comes from fund raisers and such. Technically, someone of sufficient popularity could raise enough money to cut through the grease.

However, if someone had been sufficiently popular, they would probably already be a politician and already have made money, or perhaps they'd be an actor and, well, have already made money. Yes, I'm from the state that has the Governator. Or as I saw him being called in French media, Shwarzy.

lilone + Lecktor,

<<I would like to hear the Brit reaction to Kerry's not-so-subtle demeaning of the allies in recent comments.>>

I think that many of us would probably agree with them. I believe it is true to say that the vast majority of people in this country were opposed to our joining the US in the invasion of Iraq. Blair's reputation has tumbled, and he is now regarded as untrustworthy and manipulative.

That doesn't mean he won't get in again in the next general election; the opposition is so feeble it would be really difficult for him to fail. Especially as the Labour party has done wonders with the economy. But people don't like what happened, and they don't like the people who made it happen.

My own feeling about the candidates is that neither Kerry nor Edwards seem very trustworthy, but again, they shine in comparison with their opposition.

Bush earned my undying contempt when he used the horrors of 9/11 for the purposes of the invasion of Iraq, and by doing so dishonoured all those who died. That was IMO contemptible, and it amazes me that he is still the President after doing such a dreadful thing.

And so far as the election campaign goes, it's nice to see some proper debate now. From the perspective of this country, the amount of personal badmouthing and smearing that goes on in your campaigns seems incredible. A mud-slinging contest is not an election, and I really think that in the interests of democracy, something should be done about this.

Sorry to sound critical, but that's my personal opinion.

Selador

That doesn't mean he won't get in again in the next general election; the opposition is so feeble it would be really difficult for him to fail. Especially as the Labour party has done wonders with the economy. But people don't like what happened, and they don't like the people who made it happen.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry to introduce UK politics into this thread but you are kidding - right?

Since Labour got into power taxation in this country has risen to record levels. Tax on EVERYTHING is more than under the last Conservative government. And there are many more taxes.


I would like to thank those of you from the US in this thread for answering my questions. It helps me better to understand your system.

Latonia,

Yes, I remember those halcyon days of low taxation. When we had three-and-a-half million people unemployed, and inflation was running at 12%. Great days.

Whatever. This argument doesn't belong in this thread. As I say to my Labour supporter friend - we will agree to disagree.

on who would make a better president from your outside the US perspective? i'm very curious to see if people are more pro bush or kerry on this.

yes, its sad to say that there is altogether too much mudslinging here in our campaigns. yes, its definately true you have to have to have lots of money and big time favor to make it into the top candidates, sadly. you are correct as well that there are many very qualified... the system as all systems faulters.

james answered a lot of your questions pretty dog gone well. bush tends to favor the rich (they love him- steriotypically speaking-) and kerry/edwards gives the rest of us a bit of economical hope... heh...

great feedback~

lilone,

<<on who would make a better president from your outside the US perspective? i'm very curious to see if people are more pro bush or kerry on this.>>

There is no doubt that if Kerry were President, Anglo/American relations would immediately become strained. But I'm sure that they could be patched up relatively easily. I would certainly feel more secure with Kerry in charge rather than Bush. It seems to me (and this is only an impression) that Bush does not have the level-headedness required of a head of state in difficult times.

Certainly America over recent decades has become more and more unpopular on the world stage. I think that Kerry might possibly be able to undo some of the damage that has been done. You need someone in power who will look at global issues and see domestic issues from a global perspective. It seems to me that Kerry is far more likely to adopt that approach than Bush.

Well, to sum it up:
-- Kerry is an idiot.
-- Bush is a poorly trained chimp, which I guess is a small step below "idiot".
-- We know that Bush is dangerous in his idiocy.
-- We don't know if Kerry's idiocy will be more or less dangerous than Bush's, but golly, am I ever so willing to take that chance.

heh... i tend to agree with all the above~

there was a clip in the debate that kerry said which sticks with me. 'with bush its "more of the same" ' and that scares the snot out of me--

while there is no perfect man or woman/leader... kerry makes me have more hope in a few areas. it will impact the future which ever way it turns.

ramble...


egad a new signature for me below... hope it comes out okay (closes eye)

Kerry is a critical thinker and a smart man. Sadly in the realm of soundbites this doesn't tend to go over well with the general public.

As for only the rich being President. Bill Clinton was not a rich man. He was likely the poorest President of modern times. He was not a millionaire until after his Presidency.

Slightly off the main point...

I will never understand why the Republicans nominated Bush back in 2000 over McCain. They picked a feces throwing chimp over a credible Republican that I might have even considered voting for (and that's saying alot). Unlike Dubya, McCain actually thinks for himself, and isn't a puppet of the neocon wing of the party. I just don't get it.

The Republicans tend to prefer puppets.

That's not a completely critical statement, depending on who's pulling the strings.

I tend to vote independent (Libertarian) but can't justify doing that this time, as last time, that bit me in the ass.

Before the debates, I didn't know much about Kerry, but, similar to the sentiments above, I would have voted for a dishrag over Bush at this point. I had decided not to vote For Kerry, but Against Bush. After the debates, I now feel MUCH better about voting For Kerry.

From talking to some foreign friends, I get the sense that they hate Bush, and not necessarily Americans - I think they can see the first election as the fiasco that it was. However, if we put Bush BACK in office, I imagine we Americans will then share in the hatred going toward Bush.

I just can't see how, in today's world of technology and communication, our leader could act like the wishes of the rest of the world have no relevance. Frankly, it's extremely embarassing.

If we do (please god no!!) put Bush back into office, any of you Canadians, preferrably in the cannabis friendly area of VanCouver, have a couch I could surf for a while?

Hi Iilone,

Well just for the sake of adding another 'foreign' voice then, even if one less eloquent than that of Selador

I'm not wholly sure what to make of Kerry/Edwards - they do seem to lack the character of some of their predecessors, such as Clinton, but character and competence should not be equated, and they do seem to hold the potential for a more measured leadership. I believe that my own politics would tend to side far more with the Democrats in any case.

My opinion, and that of every single person I have spoken to here in the UK who has expressed theirs, is simply that we are hoping and praying that you guys get rid of Bush and his administration, no matter who the opposing candidate is. I think that it will be a 'vote out', rather than a 'vote in' situation. This feeling seems so emotionally strong as to almost over-ride a consideration of the candidates stated policies.

I feel that the world has already suffered too much from Bush's uncompromising (but media-friendly) brand of 'cowboy diplomacy'. You can keep that for Hollywood, not real-life. International relations are sorely in need of a more credible global perspective from the US administration.

From my own observations, Bush is also generally viewed as a bigger laughing stock over here than any other political figure I can at this moment recall. Only it's really no laughing matter because the stakes are so high.

Just my two pennorth...

I've avoided this thread since it began because it stinks of ... well, something.

Having spent much of 16 years outside the US while in the military and having been stationed in Europe, the Middle East and the Far East/Wesern Pacific, I have just a few comments on the original question that is the thread title.

First, as a citizen of the US it always amused me that people of other countries were so enraptured by US politics, often far more than the people I know, love and defend here in the States.

Second, less than one percent of one percent of the people I do know care about non-US politics, particularly electioneering. This probably has many explanations - I prefer the simple one expressed by my nephew after spending a night at a friend's house on a sleep over - "Freddy's Momma's rules don't apply in this house, do they, Dad? I don't have to go to bed at 9, do I?"

Third, there's not a damned thing I can do about how others feel about our elections - hell, there's not much I can do about how I feel about them. So, in the vein of the great Alfred E. Neumann, I proclaim, "What? Me worry?"

Finally, as has so often in the 20th Century proven to be the case, the US does not control the reaction to its policies by other peoples, nations or international figures. Regardless of the perception of the US being able to control anything and everything, we aren't either omniscient or omnipotent. So, anything we do will be dissected, analyzed, discussed criticized and priased by various people. That is life.

Extending the Neumann statement, why should I waste my time caring about how the rest of the world feels about our elections? I am a peon. Bigger fish than I have the luxury of worrying about it and the power to do something to affect it. If that statement ticks off either US citizens or others... ah well. That's the beauty of being human... you have the right to be offended.

Well said, Onei.

We now live in Vancouver, Washington, USA; if Bush gets re-elected, Vancouver, B.C., Canada is looking pretty appealing.

My perspective is that too many Bush protestors have been arrested.

Well, lower taxes for the corporations, the wealthy and some of the merely rich, the middle and lower classes get the joy of higher taxes.

But Jellin, don't you see? If the rich and super rich have less in the way of taxes to pay, then that means they'll have more money to spend on what all us peons make.

I think this is what they call the trickle down theory.

Sounds kind of like we're being pissed on.