Obama vs. McCain - who is better for Ireland?

Does anyone in the media know anything? This piece in the examiner today states that Ireland does better under republican presidents than under Democrats. Really? Did anyone do any fact checking at all?

The 1950s were times of bleakness matched only by the huge rate of emigration with that nice Ike (Rep) what people said they liked in the White house. Most people reckon the 60s were pretty good here economically with Lemass and his plans and the general opening up of the country, but weren't Kennedy and Johnson Democrats? And then when things went to hell in handbasket in the early 70s that Nixon chap (Rep) was commander in chief. We had a brief boom in the late 70s due to the government getting drunk on tax cuts and inflationary public spending but the chickens and most forms of farmyard fowl came home to roost in the 80s. That would be when Ronald the non-McDonald (Rep) was letting things supply siding it up and trickle down.

Times were even tighter here under Bush I (Rep). Most people place the emergence of the Celtic Tiger from the undergrowth (though it's birth pangs were probably felt in the latter days of Bush I) at some point between '94 and '96 when Clinton (Dem) was still paying attention to non-cigar related activities and our recent housing related boom and bust was under Bush II. So, I don't there is any solid pattern there but if you were making any kind of correlation it would be more plausible to suggest that we do better when the Dems are in charge. Though we need a period of republican rule to prepare us.

As for the future it is not completely unreasonable to suggest that if Obama pushes a protectionist agenda that it may will harm our position but there is nothing in recent history to support the actual tone or title of the article.

Hillary vs Who? and What?

My ha'penny on Super Duper Tuesday.

Hillary is going to be the nominee for the Democrats. There I've said it. I know loads of people think that Obama has loads of momentum after the last few weeks and that he is well placed now but the fact remains he has fallen short and he need really big wins in really big states, exactly the type of place he didn't get close to winning last night. It seems that where the Dems are weakest he has been able to gee up the base more. States that have been so red that declaring yourself a Democrat is accompanied by a coming out party and the number of a sponsor.

Obama has to win a clean sweep of the Chesapeake Primaries (Maryland, D.C. and Virginia) next week or else Clinton will simply moving further ahead of him. By March 4th (the old Super Tuesday) Obama would be requiring landslides in the big states after in order to draw level, and I can't see that happening. Some might say that the surge came too late but it might also be that it simply made him viable.

I expect both camps to play nice over the next few weeks as the idea of having a ticket which has Obama on as Veep sinks in, perhaps even with the hint being dropped that he might get to run in 4 years time. If he can bring out the same youth vote, then it could have a big impact in the Congressional races too. It hasn't been done quite this way before but a person on the ticket who plays up their advisory role and ability to assist in agenda setting has happened before and it was Hillary herself who talked up her role with Bill. One of the benefits to being VP for Obama is that he does haven't to say or decide anything allowing him to sidestep many contentious issue that he would have to take a side on in the Senate, the downside is that he is tied to her performance in office not his own.

So despite the initial impression that the Democrats are going to I think their race is almost settled. As for the incumbent party, oh dear

Republicans -

The talk seems to be that McCain is the presumptive nominee and that it is all over bar the shouting. I actually think they're the party with problems that will right the way run to the convention. and remember they have the shorter run from the convention to election day. Usually a benefit but not if you have a pie fight live on television that gets replayed for the first 3 weeks of the campaign proper.

For the Republicans there is a different problem winner takes all states keeps the game alive in that candidates can dream/project/hope for marginal wins in the states that get them up the delegate numbers. McCain is on 559 which while well ahead of the others individually is only 265/169/16 = 109 ahead of them all together.

The problem for McCain is that while he is the candidate to win over the independents required to secure victory in November, he can't be confident of the south. He wasn't able to break 40% in any of the southern states that have voted yesterday and that means if at least some of the 60% who voted for someone else (include 10% for Thompson in Tennessee) decide to simply stay home then he is in trouble. The Republican don't have a solid southern strategy this time especially if someone runs ads repeating the Republican attacks against him regarding pro-choice and immigration.

The difficulty the republican find themselves in is entirely of their own making since no one told the religious right/moral majority that the Republican party is also a coalition of interests and that while they were a significant part and indeed the single most numerous part of the party in recent years that they were not a majority and had no right

Do not bet against the republicans having a war over the convention as the religious try and create a platform that McCain won't run under. Is it more likely common sense will prevail yes but is it a possibility undoubtedly. If the RR/MM think the election is already lost to the party they may come to the conclusion that the convention and campaign should be about what the party is to become rather than chasing after elected office that is speeding away from them.