The Economist has opened up the vote to its readers worldwide to see who'd be the next US president if the whole world could vote. China, as it turns out, is "strong Obama" — 83% of respondents here voted Obama and 17% McCain. With more than 10,000 votes cast, it looks like the whole world is voting overwhelmingly in Obama's favour. When we last checked, 9,120 votes went to Obama while McCain managed 270 votes, defeating his opponent with a small margin in such enlightened states as Cuba, Congo, Sudan, Algeria, Namibia and Macedonia. Iraq turned out to be the only "strong McCain" constituency (thanks to all his military buddies). We think there‘s a lesson to be gleaned from this exercise: The Economist's readers are just not mavericky enough.
| 3° | 
|
- Those sexy photos of Zhang Ziyi topless on the beach canoodling with her fiance Vivi Nevo...
- Best and worst party flyers in 2008
- Jue Festival starts today
- Weird times, weird people
- Shanghai skyline recreated in dice and poker chips
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
I heard about this. I believe the same survey noted that Chinese had very little understanding of the issues behind the election and were being influenced by the fact that Obama is black.
In fact, I think that if Obama were white, the difference between the two candidates worldwide would be much less. Dislike of Bush would still have him winning, but people would not see much more of a difference besides party affiliation.
Let's see how they feel after their trade disappears.
Democrats especially Barack Obama are against free trade,which really concerns Chinese people's interests.The ideological issues of John McCain and Republicans are merely talk the talk.
Thank God it's Americans elect American President.
I do think the bulk of people who voted in this exercise are not China-Chinese but foreigners resident in China.
To say that Democrats or Obama are "against free trade" is such an enormous oversimplification that it hardly makes any sense. Hard to even know where to begin with a comment like that.
From Obama's website:
Trade Policy That Works for All People in All Countries: Obama and Biden believe that trade with foreign nations should strengthen the American economy and create more American jobs. They will stand firm against agreements that undermine our economic security and will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world.
Detailed, clear, just right.
Way to go, El Jefe! You have gone to the most biased source first to get your data. Nothing like reaching for the stars...
Oh boy, I can see this post getting 30+ comments. Shall we just cut to the chase and start the name calling now?
Obama and Clinton both played both sides of the "free trade" issue when campaigning, criticizing NAFTA when in northern states like Michigan that have been losing jobs and industries, then boosting the same when in Texas, which has benefited from increased trade with neighboring Mexico.
Obama's a politician like any other, and with the economy in the state it is he'll improvise depending on various changing conditions. A platform plank like that is mostly rhetoric. And when it comes to China, it gets votes to talk tough but when it comes down to it, business is business and nobody in the White House is likely to intentionally further screw up the economy by pushing China hard.
I do think the bulk of people who voted in this exercise are not China-Chinese but foreigners resident in China.
Quoted for truth.
Thank God it's Americans elect American President.
Quoted for humor.
The real question is: does anyone doubt Obama's going to win?
Well-said WatchBag. The thing that amazes me about this election is not the number of people who are looking for fundamental change from the US, but the number of people who really think Obama will bring the US there on any issue. This is an election where most Americans and foreigners are basing their opinions almost entirely on ideals of the populace and not on the realities of the candidates... hence my comment about race. Those who actually know the issues are in the minority.
And while I can't vouch for the make-up of the Economist's survey, I can include this link to an article that was published in the China Daily this week:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2008-10/23/content_7131454.htm
While the China Daily is hardly a paragon of balanced reporting, I don't see that they would have any reason to stretch the truth here. And despite what it claims about 30 percent of Chinese following the election closely, it doesn't quote one Chinese person who can comment on any one issue authoritatively.
The money quotation is this one, which I feel probably reflects the real opinion of most Chinese the closest: "Yu Honglan, 47, a woman office cleaner in Beijing, said she had heard about the election but knew nothing about it. 'No matter who becomes the US president, he will not have much to do with my life. I'm concerned about something else that their falling economy may affect us.'"
I think the Redneck Guards are continuing to mobilize... but they have a hell of an uphill battle to fight. Hope they don't win. Go Obama.
Don't like Obama = Redneck. Got it.
"Nobody in the White House is likely to intentionally further screw up the economy." Does this statement have a meaning?
I don't need name-calling. I would like to know what "Change We Need" means. Can someone explain it to me? It seems like the ultimate oversimplification.
Maybe he is targeting those who ride busses without the exact fare...
Surprised Obama's yet to have been ripped apart as a black man by Chinese "netizens" the way they do to Condi Rice...
Aw, Jefe, you can dislike Obama and not be a redneck.
And I totally agree that "Change We Need" is vacuous, but hey, it's a political slogan, so what do you expect? It's just as dopey as "Country First" (maybe you can tell me what *that* really means).
I'm just saying that whatever either candidate is claiming on the campaign trail will fall to the wayside when the pressures of actually governing hit and that in the case of China neither candidate is likely to get too tough with China on trade policy despite campaign comments to that effect because that'd probably "further screw up the economy" since China kinda holds a lot in US currency and the global economy has kinda depended on massive Western consumption of Chinese exports largely bankrolled by China underwriting US debt for a while, just in case you hadn't noticed...
I'd really like to hear Sarah Palin's take on all this, by the way. That'd be sweet.
I'd really like to hear Sarah Palin's take on all this, by the way. That'd be sweet.
She's going to need stronger binoculars to see us from Alaska. Where does Hu Jintao go when HE rears his head?
Country First is a description of McCain's life: in the military, in a prison cell, in the government. I think it's fairly clear.
Now I get it, the election is about Palin saying something stupid. Silly me.
The Republican machine is warping McCain and his message. He should have been the President in 2000. But hopefully both truly recognize that China is bad for the US and bad for the world, oozing of melamine, lead, subway vomit, hair coloring for men, bad breath and other such foul odors and liquids.
Um, no, Jefecito, it's about a hell of a lot of things, including Palin saying *a lot* of stupid things and about the McCain campaign having chosen her as the VP candidate, which tells us a lot about their priorities ("country"="the real America"="religious right" [at least when convenient & necessary to solidify the Reagan/Rove-built base that has had problems with the Maverick in the past]).
It also tells us a lot about McCain's decision-making process and judgment. If Obama wins and you're pissed off, be pissed at McCain and the RNC for their Palin gambit. If the polls are wrong and they win, let's all audaciously hope McCain doesn't kick the bucket in the next four years.
So Obama is the right choice because the Republicans are wrong. Is that a convincing argument? I'm not sold. I just want to see something substantial that is not merely set in opposition to Bush. Can you provide that?
CHANGE WE NEED.
At least Hilary had something to look at other than marshmallow fluffernutters.
Here you go El Jefe:
Change We Need =
* Change from the Bush policies that have taken a budget surplus (8 years ago) and nearly destroyed the US economy
* Change from the disastrous war fought on evidence we now know to be falsified by Bush's cronies
* Change that has continued the slide in economic equality in America; the rich are getting obscenely rich while the middle class is disappearing
* Change from the foreign policies that have turned America from a beacon of hope to a world pariah
* Changes that will mean that the White House is no longer run by the world's oil companies
......
I could go on, but you probably get the point.
Yes, I get it in a list of backwards-looking statements. Boiled down, the platform is "think Bush, now think the opposite."
Not bad = good.
Still not sold.
Still not sold? Are you just being obstinate?
Perhaps if McCain had distanced himself from Bush's policies he'd have a leg to stand on . . . but the man wants to extend the same ruinous economic policies that have hyper-inflated the debt and the same wars that have sapped this country for years . . .
Plus he selected an absolute twit as a running mate . . . Obama appears poised, calm, articulate and has surrounded himself with excellent non-ideological advisors . . . honestly, I doubt the intelligence and character of anyone who supports the Republican ticket at this point . . .
Oh boy, I can see this post getting 30+ comments. Shall we just cut to the chase and start the name calling now?
One more to the big 30. And all the name-calling's been very civil. Where's nanheyangrouchuan?
All I'll say about the election is that if the Republiclowns had nominated McCain in 2000, things would be alot different in this country. Instead, they wanted a wet noodle yes man who would quietly obey Darth Cheney, Rummy and filthy corporate executive pig fuckers who should all be impaled while still breathing.
There, comment #30.
Fuck China and leastman.
I doubt the intelligence of someone that believes in something defined solely in opposition to something else. No one has ever accused me of having character.
I do understand the Bush hatred. I don't like him either, but unlike 99% of the world, I'm not naive enough to blame him for every problem that we have. If you do, then how is electing a Democrat with a filibuster-proof majority going to limit this apparently already uncontrollable presidential power? Scary. At least if an Obama presidency fails, we can all continue to blame Bush for destroying us permanently and forever.
To put it lightly, not bad=/=good, but until the third parties actually get some strong backers behind them and we actually have a multi-party race I'd rather vote "not bad" than "bad".
It's ok to blame Bush for all the world's ills, EL JEFE. He's so awful that no one cares to sort out the good from the bad in that administration. Let's just call him the singular worst president in american history and move on. Why go into a dungheap to salvage anything?
El JEFE harbors some secret admiration of the ruinous evil that Darth Cheney, Rummy Rumsfeld, Fat Bastard Rove and Panda Licker Paulson have leveled upon the American people.
Hey! 10% of the 700 billion USD bailout is going towards paying back compensation to Wall St execs.
The US could make peace with AQ by letting them perform a modern holocaust on Wall St. and K Street and the average American could care less.
Kill them all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Can't you just stay in your NORAD masturbation bunker and leave the rest of the world alone? The only thing I harbor is a stirring satisfaction that bubbles up when I think of how miserable you must be.
El Jefe is right, you know. Few are the people who can actually explain why Obama should win without dragging Bush out of their mental closet. Despite his insistance at finding another explanation, nobody here has yet provided one.
Yeah, the Palin choice was a mistake. But I would still rather have McCain in office than Obama, and I am pretty sure the status of the US would benefit regardless of who wins.
The one thing that I hear said from time to time that truly bears a lot of weight is this: If indeed Obama is The One, and if indeed McCain is such a poor choice, then why is Obama's lead not much greater than it currently is? Much of the country has major misgivings. You can't dismiss them all as rednecks and fools.
But this is all beside the point. The real issue is China's perception of the candidates. If anyone wants to know the bitterness involved in this campaign from an American perspective, there are thousands of sources of information that are better than Shanghaiist. So I don't really see what going around in circles like this adds to this thread.
How much do the Chinese really know about American politics?
Did they know Obama and McCain are pro-death penalty, pro-FISA, pro-government bailout of the banks, pro-increased military budget, pro-off-shore drilling, and anti-national health care? Of course not, most Americans who are voting don't either.
"El Jefe is right, you know. Few are the people who can actually explain why Obama should win without dragging Bush out of their mental closet. Despite his insistance at finding another explanation, nobody here has yet provided one."
That is par for the course for candidates from a party different than the previous president. Promotion of alternative energy and more even handed diplomacy would be some other substantial reasons and gee, those policies also go against Bush administration practices.