Foreign perspective regarding US Presidential elections

[FreeflyChile 0]

Errol's comment as an "interested foreigner" in the "unelectable" thread got me thinking...

In my opinion, the US elections probably affect the world as a whole as much or more than any other presidential/leader election/changeover in any other country. In various threads, there are posters from outside the US that have commented on candidates, the political process, etc.

I was just curious about hearing from these non-US posters about what thought (if they did at all) about what is going on here w/regard to the presidential process - the candidates, issues, etc. Are "foreigners" worried? concerned? curiously amused? as ready for change as this country seems to be?

[wmw999 2,123]

I'm going to quote a private letter because, well, the poster is anonymous, and the insights are interesting.

This is a former colleague of my father's in Brazil; US educated for his master's and PhD. Stays abreast of things.

Quote

I have been following this grotesque display of money and power of the American presidential campaign. Mr. Obama, it seems to me, is pledging for a job in the wrong place. He would fare better as presidentidal candidate of a nation in the tropics. His message (Change!) is millenia old. As to dear Mrs. Clinton, I guess she fails on moral grounds after having struck a no-retaliation-make-me-President deal with her husband in the Monica Lewinsky days. May I say, in the absence of Gore, I vote republican this time and think old Giuliani is better prepared to save the world after his magnificent curriculum as mayor of NY. I guess the world needs an international figure as president of the US, not a grass roots pastor-in-chief. Meantime, Brazil is doing fine though the stock market is crashing under fears the US economy will implode after the craziness of the securitization of mortgage contracts. What a mess you have made! What a mess that jerk Alan Greenspan has made reducing the interest rates to abysmal levels thus inviting this failed run into real assets. Well, we have survived before and will do it again.

I particularly liked "grotesque display of money and power of the American presidential campaign." And I don't think I've ever heard Alan Greenspan called a jerk by an economist before

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[crwtom 0]

Quote

In my opinion, the US elections probably affect the world as a whole as much or more than any other presidential/leader election/changeover in any other country.

I doubt it -- the history and politics of racism in the US is quite unique to the US. Although many countries have their own ethnic and racial divisions there aren't really any good parallels to the way this developed in the US from slavery to civil rights movement.

As to gender, having women leaders is not a novelty in many other democratic countries already for decades.

In either case people from other countries will take interest in how far the US has caught up with handling racism and sexism, but I don't think the US elections will serve as an example to anyone outside the US.

Cheers, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[Andrewwhyte 1]

I don't think the comment about the importance of US elections has much to do with transient internal social issues; it has more to do with the fact that the worlds markets are in turmoil due to the US housing crisis, the fact that US foreign policy decisions have led some countries into two wars, others into one that tend to have the governments offside with internal public opinion.
The eventual winner of this race will have a huge impact upon things like the Doha round of the WTO discussions, the future of Islamic nation- Christian nation relations, and the progression of Capitalism.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Quote

In my opinion, the US elections probably affect the world as a whole as much or more than any other presidential/leader election/changeover in any other country.

I doubt it -- the history and politics of racism in the US is quite unique to the US. Although many countries have their own ethnic and racial divisions there aren't really any good parallels to the way this developed in the US from slavery to civil rights movement.

I don't think he meant the US elections affect the rest of the world as a demonstration of social progress, I think he meant the US elections affect the rest of the world because the US is arguably the only genuine superpower left with a very marked tendency to throw its political, economic and military weight around.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[livendive 8]

I thought this article was interesting.

Quote

World Is Watching US Presidential Race
By WILLIAM J. KOLE – 4 days ago

Germans are gaga over Barack Obama. He's got Japan pretty jazzed, too, along with Hillary Rodham Clinton. Russia's leaders, not so much: They prefer a Republican — as long as it's not Kremlin critic John McCain.

And Mexico's president? He doesn't have much use for any of them.

America's extraordinary presidential campaign has captivated politicians and ordinary people around the globe. With so much at stake in the race for the White House, the world is watching with an intensity that hasn't been seen since the Clinton era began in 1992.

After eight years of President Bush, the latest mantra in U.S. politics — "transformational change" — is resonating across the rest of a planet desperate for a fresh start.

"They feel there's a real chance to work with the U.S.," said Julianne Smith, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. "America's image in the world is really on the line."

Non-Americans, she said, are looking for someone who can "restore faith in the United States."

Obama, perhaps not surprisingly, is generating most of the buzz abroad.

"Der schwarze Kennedy," some German admirers are calling him: "The black JFK."

"He is young, charming and sexy!" the mass-circulation newspaper Bild gushed. "Obama is now the ideal projection screen for hopes and expectations in Europe" and the U.S. alike, said Christian Hacke, a professor at the University of Bonn.

"I like him. I like his ideas, his attitude, his appearance. I prefer him to Hillary Clinton, who is more artificial," said Eva Berto, a Rome doctor who thinks Obama would bring a new approach to the crisis in Iraq and the nuclear standoff with Iran.

Japanese media are closely tracking both Obama and the woman they refer to simply as "Hillary," and focusing on the possibility that either could make history.

"The idea since the country's founding — 'You can't become president if you're not a white man' — has already been destroyed," the Mainichi newspaper said in an editorial.

But in Europe, where some see Obama as untested, support for Clinton is widespread, and nostalgia for her husband's charisma runs deep. When scandals rocked the Clinton White House, most Europeans responded with a Gallic shrug.

"Nobody in Europe ever took Bill Clinton's problems in office seriously," said Patrick Dunleavy, a political scientist at the London School of Economics. "Nobody could ever understand why Americans were so upset. Bill Clinton was always a fantastic presence in Europe."

The Republican presidential hopefuls, by contrast, are not highly regarded in Europe: Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are seen as too religious, and the 71-year-old McCain as too old.

To Britons, history's most popular postwar presidents were Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton because of their perceived levelheadedness and intelligence, said Dunleavy. The most despised? President Bush and Ronald Reagan "because they were seen as erratic and unpredictable," he said.

Yet Democrats don't rule the entire world of public opinion.

Saad al-Hadithi, a political analyst in Baghdad, contends the Republican candidates are more committed to Iraq and have a better approach.

"They show more support to the political progress and to combating terrorist groups in Iraq," he said. "The Democrats, especially Hillary Clinton, are calling for the withdrawal of U.S. forces, but they are not offering an alternative. Such a withdrawal while the Iraqi security forces are still weak will lead to disastrous results."

Russia's leaders also consider Republicans more pragmatic, said Nkolai Petrov, an analyst with the Carnegie Moscow Center.

But the Kremlin, Petrov said, would likely have "serious concerns" if McCain wins the Republican nomination because of the Arizona senator's harsh and persistent criticism of Vladimir Putin's autocratic government.

Others in Russia are drawn to the lively U.S. campaign if only because it's such a sharp contrast to Moscow's tightly choreographed March 2 presidential election — a contest that Putin's favored successor, Dmitry Medvedev, is seen as certain to win.

Africans naturally gravitate toward Obama, whose father was from Kenya.

Israelis, though, seem to prefer Hillary Clinton — even though Obama has voiced support for key Israeli demands in peace talks with the Palestinians — because of her experience and the backing Bill Clinton gave to the Jewish state during his two terms as president.

Amid the raging debate over immigration, Mexicans arguably have more at stake in the U.S. election than any other nation. But President Felipe Calderon doesn't think very highly of any of the candidates.

"The only theme," he declared in December, "is to compete to see who can be the most swaggering, macho and anti-Mexican."

In the post-Bush era, the bottom line is blunt and simple, Dunleavy said.

"People all around the world are pretty worried," he said. "They want a president who will restore a kind of U.S. legitimacy in the world."

Associated Press writers Matt Moore in Berlin, Sameer N. Yacoub in Baghdad, Steve Gutterman in Moscow, Bernd Bergmann in Rome, Natacha Rios in Paris and Karel Janicek in Prague contributed to this report.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[FreeflyChile 0]

Yes, that is what I was getting at - that the US is, for better or worse, like it or not, hugely important on the world stage wrt economics, wars, etc. Therefore, what happens here has an effect felt outside of the US borders, and given the current state of affairs a change at the top could affect a lot more than just the United States.

[FreeflyChile 0]

That was a very interesting take, and along the lines of what I was wondering about in the original post...thanks!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

As to dear Mrs. Clinton, I guess she fails on moral grounds after having struck a no-retaliation-make-me-President deal with her husband in the Monica Lewinsky days.

I thought foreigners thought the whole Monica thing was unimportant? Yet at least this one blames the wife?

[skydyvr 0]

Interesting, thanks.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Hausse 0]

I'm from Switzerland and I'm currently studying in the US.

I personally think that the way the elections are held is simply ridiculous and retarded. It is humongously complicated and that everybody is voting at another day seems pretty wrong seeing that people who vote earlier have more power. I think the pre elections should be one day in August (the shorter the time between pre elections and elections the less money gets wasted on campaigning) and then the real elections in October. I also think it is completely wrong that intrest groups are allowed to donate money.

No doubt the US elections are influencing the world, but I would say as a Swiss person living in Switzerland it would have mostly influenced me economically and maybe ecologically since war's do not really influence Switzerland in any other way. So I wouldn't say the US election is even close to the importance of things like Schengen, new decisions in the EU and so on.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

I personally think that the way the elections are held is simply ridiculous and retarded. It is humongously complicated and that everybody is voting at another day seems pretty wrong seeing that people who vote earlier have more power. I think the pre elections should be one day in August (the shorter the time between pre elections and elections the less money gets wasted on campaigning) and then the real elections in October. I also think it is completely wrong that intrest groups are allowed to donate money.

Welcome to Hillary Clinton's exact view on the election process and it's problems. She would make them 100% publically funded.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Hausse 0]

Quote

Quote

I personally think that the way the elections are held is simply ridiculous and retarded. It is humongously complicated and that everybody is voting at another day seems pretty wrong seeing that people who vote earlier have more power. I think the pre elections should be one day in August (the shorter the time between pre elections and elections the less money gets wasted on campaigning) and then the real elections in October. I also think it is completely wrong that intrest groups are allowed to donate money.

Welcome to Hillary Clinton's exact view on the election process and it's problems. She would make them 100% publically funded.

If that's Hillary's view I have to agree with her. The money wasted for the election is just ridiculous.

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I personally think that the way the elections are held is simply ridiculous and retarded. It is humongously complicated and that everybody is voting at another day seems pretty wrong seeing that people who vote earlier have more power. I think the pre elections should be one day in August (the shorter the time between pre elections and elections the less money gets wasted on campaigning) and then the real elections in October. I also think it is completely wrong that intrest groups are allowed to donate money.

Welcome to Hillary Clinton's exact view on the election process and it's problems. She would make them 100% publically funded.

If that's Hillary's view I have to agree with her. The money wasted for the election is just ridiculous.

Who are you to say what PRIVATE expenditures are a waste? Did I miss when you became a US Citizen?

In the law we call things like that "Standing." You lack it.

Socialist programs rightfully face inherent suspicion-they breed laziness. THey should be presumed not worth it until proven otherwise. Other peoples' welfare is coddled enough here. Enough is enough. Our pockets are picked for socialist bullshit enough as it is.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Who are you to say what PRIVATE expenditures are a waste? Did I miss when you became a US Citizen?

Facinating argument you got there -- nobody but US citizens can have an opinion on the election process.

. . =(_8^(1)

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

In the law we call things like that "Standing." You lack it.

In the rest of the world we say "Are we in a courtroom? How the fuck did I miss that?"

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Who are you to say what PRIVATE expenditures are a waste? Did I miss when you became a US Citizen?

In the law we call things like that "Standing." You lack it.

Did you read the thread title? What part of foreign didn't you get?
The issues surrounding the American electoral process are mostly not particularly American. Campaign finance rules are an issue in most democracies. In Canada the government has put limits on third party spending several times, only to have them thrown out by the supreme court (along with agonizingly cryptic comments which invite them to try again). Lately we have put some limits on corporate donations and campaign spending while adding some social funding. it doesn't seem to have changed much. One interesting effect is that because social funding is based upon votes garnered in the last election, there is now more incentive to vote for the fringe parties rather than strategically voting i.e. I really like the Greens but they cannot win. I hate the Tories most so I will vote Liberal to keep them out. This at least to some degree is replaced by- I really like the Greens but they cannot win. I will go and vote for them anyway because they get more funding for next time if I do.
Shifting all campaign financing to such a system would, in my opinion, unleash a tax revenue sucking monster the likes of which the country has never seen before.

[Hausse 0]

I might not have been clear enough. Here what I meant:

I think it's a huge waste to spend money on having 5 people travel through the US for 1.5 years to hold speeches and all other kind of crap.
You could do 5 TV debates which would be enough so everybody could pick a guy to vote for and save the tons of money and use it for something that is actually useful.

Additional to that I think that donations should be required to be made anonymous. To me as a person from a country in which I don't even know where the people are getting the money for campaigning because it's so little, it seems that the big corporations are doing a simple quid pro quo with the possible future president. Just doesn't seem right to have a kind of corruption legal.

And by the way the question asked was how foreigners think about the election process. It seems kind of stupid to tell me to fuck of because I'm foreign in that context.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Who are you to say what PRIVATE expenditures are a waste? Did I miss when you became a US Citizen?

Based on the thread title, I'd say he's one of the people whose opinion was being solicited.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I think it's a huge waste to spend money on having 5 people travel through the US for 1.5 years to hold speeches and all other kind of crap.
You could do 5 TV debates which would be enough so everybody could pick a guy to vote for and save the tons of money and use it for something that is actually useful.

You want the most powerful elected person on the planet selected based on how well he (or now she) looks on TV?

Part of the reason for the drawn up nomination process (which is not 1.5 years, btw) is historical - it used to be harder to get around the country. But it also removes the flash in the pan candidates from ones who are actually capable of doing the job. And by spending the good part of a year campaigning locally in every state, the candidates meet the politicians they will be working with as President.

In Europe, most leaders are Prime Ministers who are selected by the legislature. There isn't a question of working together. Our equilivent is the Speaker of the House and the Senator Majority Leader. The President is not the same - if not liked by his own party, becomes useless.

Quote

Additional to that I think that donations should be required to be made anonymous.

This, as well as the idea of a ban on contributions, would be a violation of our freedom of speech. Corporations will still find ways to funnel money, but that would silence interest groups like the NRA, the Teachers Union, AARP (retired people), and other organizations that effectively represent millions of citizens.

[Hausse 0]

I still do not think that it is necessary to do such long elections. As far as I remember they started campaigning sometimes in September an the election will be in November so it's about 15 months...
I think there should be at least some kind of regulation that restricts the candidates. I am sure they would be able to get a full program for the pre-elections done in about 3 months and then another 3 for the precidency. Additionally you could restrict the funds they are allowed to spend.
As far as I know the whole campaigning started earlier this year than ever so I doubt that it is historically based.
It would not restrict the freedom of speech, it would merely make it unprovable who donated what so the president would not be biased. I am sure there would be ways to get that done. I just don't think in this case it is worth to have to have the full freedom of speech seeing that you end up with a president who pretty much "has" to do what companies are dictating. (Yes I am aware that's exagerated but it is certainly true in a lot of cases).

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I personally think that the way the elections are held is simply ridiculous and retarded. It is humongously complicated and that everybody is voting at another day seems pretty wrong seeing that people who vote earlier have more power. I think the pre elections should be one day in August (the shorter the time between pre elections and elections the less money gets wasted on campaigning) and then the real elections in October. I also think it is completely wrong that intrest groups are allowed to donate money.

Welcome to Hillary Clinton's exact view on the election process and it's problems. She would make them 100% publically funded.

If that's Hillary's view I have to agree with her. The money wasted for the election is just ridiculous.

Who are you to say what PRIVATE expenditures are a waste? Did I miss when you became a US Citizen?

In the law we call things like that "Standing." You lack it.

RUBBISH. This isn't a court of law, it's Speakers Corner on DZ.COM.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I still do not think that it is necessary to do such long elections. As far as I remember they started campaigning sometimes in September an the election will be in November so it's about 15 months...

With all of the states rushing to move themselves to the front of the schedule, we actually have a shorter nomination process than we historically have had. It used to go from early January to early June in California. Now it will be over before March. So yeah, we could shift it a few months later. We will instead have a break from March till mid July.

Quote

I think there should be at least some kind of regulation that restricts the candidates. I am sure they would be able to get a full program for the pre-elections done in about 3 months and then another 3 for the precidency. Additionally you could restrict the funds they are allowed to spend.
As far as I know the whole campaigning started earlier this year than ever so I doubt that it is historically based.
It would not restrict the freedom of speech, it would merely make it unprovable who donated what so the president would not be biased. I am sure there would be ways to get that done. I just don't think in this case it is worth to have to have the full freedom of speech seeing that you end up with a president who pretty much "has" to do what companies are dictating. (Yes I am aware that's exagerated but it is certainly true in a lot of cases).

Freedom of speech doesn't mean: you can say anything you like, but only anonymously. Wouldn't achieve your goals anyway---it's trivial to have secret slush funds. The President knows that if he bans tobacco, a lot of 'anonymous' money won't come in anymore.

And you can't make politicans not be politicans prior to an official start date. And why would you want to? You want more responsive politicians, not ones that only show up on TV. Well, that's what I want. You seem to just want an experience free of campaigns annoying you. Get yourself a dvr already.

In short - the problem isn't so simple that you can just make silly little rules and all will be well. And much of what you see as a problem really isn't.

[Hausse 0]

Okey how about this: Every candidate is allowed to spend at maximum $x for the pre election and then $y for the election.

Like that you would prevent slush money and you would make them start later (and even if they start earlier I don't care since they can't waste more money).

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

Okey how about this: Every candidate is allowed to spend at maximum $x for the pre election and then $y for the election.

Like that you would prevent slush money and you would make them start later (and even if they start earlier I don't care since they can't waste more money).

We've got this little impediment to your idea called the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.