Shoutbox

Winning election isn't about providing change, its about compromise. It's about vague promises, its about populism. It isn't about policies its about personalities.

I know it should be the other way round, but it isn't, the majority of your population will vote for whoever they have traditionally voted for, or whoever promises them the best deal.

Our two country's hold very much the same recent political histories which prove this. In the 90s we both had countries tarnished by the neo-liberalism of Regan and Thatcher. So along come Blair and Clinton with their third way, providing style rather than substance, and a compromise between neo-liberalism and social democracy. The "Radical Centre" has been adopted for 10 years. Now along comes Cameron and along will come Obama, who both will try to provide a compromise between the third way and neo-liberalism.

None of the candidates actually stand for much other than "Change", because people are sick of those in charge. But if they were to say how they want to change things, they will alienate voters, which is a no no.

Personally I would still vote for Obama anyway, for two reasons, if Clinton wins no one other than a Bush or a Clinton will have been in the White House since 1989, that in a country with limited terms? Sounds more like a monarchy to me. Not that you even directly elect your president.....