This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1jasonseidner
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/10/23/poll-finds-20-of-21...
I know some will say that these countries like Obama because he's soft or that he's less threatening to them, helps their economy, etc. Anyone can spin virtually anything. But if you asked me who I wanted to lead England or France or Japan (or even a potential threat, like Indonesia) I would always prefer the smarter, stronger choice. Any thoughts?
I know some will say that these countries like Obama because he's soft or that he's less threatening to them, helps their economy, etc. Anyone can spin virtually anything. But if you asked me who I wanted to lead England or France or Japan (or even a potential threat, like Indonesia) I would always prefer the smarter, stronger choice. Any thoughts?
2labwriter
I think it's interesting that the world is so enthralled with American politics. Is there another country in the world where this is the case?
What do you think this means?: Romney’s best showing was in Kenya with 18 percent, perhaps reflecting a degree of disillusionment with Obama.
What do you think this means?: Romney’s best showing was in Kenya with 18 percent, perhaps reflecting a degree of disillusionment with Obama.
3Bretzky1
To my mind, the rest of the world's favoring of Obama over Romney has to do with two things.
First, the rest of the world is terrified of the amount of power that the US wields on the world stage (and that includes America's allies). The terror arises not so much from a fear that the US will invade or directly harm their country (though that does apply to a small group of countries), but from the perception that we have so much power that we cannot wield it without causing more harm than good.
My feeling is that the rest of the world views Obama as being two things relative to Romney when it comes to American power. First, he's less sure of the benefits to America of wielding its power outside the bounds of international law. Second, he is just in general less enamored of the use of military power, and is more inclined to use diplomatic power to achieve American interests, which is seen as a return to the pre-Bush II years.
Second, the rest of the world is waiting for the American economy to recover so that it acts as a shot in the arm for the world economy, and the orthodox view around the world is that Obama's economic policies are the better way to make that happen. It's no coincidence that global economic growth started to swoon after the US financial crisis. The rich-world consumer is the engine of global growth. When US and EU consumers started pulling back from buying, that left a large hole in the world economy that no one else has stepped in to fill. Consumer spending is up in developing countries, but not nearly enough to plug the hole left by the retreat of US and EU consumers. And, let's face it, the likelihood of the EU getting out of its economic mess before the US does is almost nonexistent. So the rest of the world (including the EU) is looking to the US to get its house in order so that it starts buying from the rest of the world again, which would make it easier for them to get things moving. There might still be a hope that China turns on a switch and its people start acting like rich-world consumers, but in all probability that reality is at least 30 years away, if it ever occurs at all.
First, the rest of the world is terrified of the amount of power that the US wields on the world stage (and that includes America's allies). The terror arises not so much from a fear that the US will invade or directly harm their country (though that does apply to a small group of countries), but from the perception that we have so much power that we cannot wield it without causing more harm than good.
My feeling is that the rest of the world views Obama as being two things relative to Romney when it comes to American power. First, he's less sure of the benefits to America of wielding its power outside the bounds of international law. Second, he is just in general less enamored of the use of military power, and is more inclined to use diplomatic power to achieve American interests, which is seen as a return to the pre-Bush II years.
Second, the rest of the world is waiting for the American economy to recover so that it acts as a shot in the arm for the world economy, and the orthodox view around the world is that Obama's economic policies are the better way to make that happen. It's no coincidence that global economic growth started to swoon after the US financial crisis. The rich-world consumer is the engine of global growth. When US and EU consumers started pulling back from buying, that left a large hole in the world economy that no one else has stepped in to fill. Consumer spending is up in developing countries, but not nearly enough to plug the hole left by the retreat of US and EU consumers. And, let's face it, the likelihood of the EU getting out of its economic mess before the US does is almost nonexistent. So the rest of the world (including the EU) is looking to the US to get its house in order so that it starts buying from the rest of the world again, which would make it easier for them to get things moving. There might still be a hope that China turns on a switch and its people start acting like rich-world consumers, but in all probability that reality is at least 30 years away, if it ever occurs at all.
4Lunar
#1: Smarter? In what way? Politically savvy, maybe, but I don't think he's as intelligent as he let's on. But generally you know that a constituency hasn't got a clue about any substantive policy difference between their candidate and another when they're resorting to the promotion of personality qualities. It's like the left-wing equivalent of whether you'd like to have a beer with them when it's really the same regime-change Bushit and bailouts. Just slap a "smart" label on that Bushit like there's a "smart" way to fuck the world. Who eats this tripe?
Personally, it might be more interesting to see more surveys of countries who are at the ass end of Obama's wars (only Pakistan is included above since it was only a survey of the most populous countries), but even then you're asking them to pick the "lesser of two evils."
Personally, it might be more interesting to see more surveys of countries who are at the ass end of Obama's wars (only Pakistan is included above since it was only a survey of the most populous countries), but even then you're asking them to pick the "lesser of two evils."
5timspalding
Okay, the Peruvians and Indonesians the want Obama. But what Indonesian presidential candidate do Peruvians favor?
6jasonseidner
4--
Okay, so then explain it. There has to be SOME explanation as to why they"re all so pro-Obama. I mean, it could just be random luck, but if you flip a coin how often does it come up heads 20 out of 21 times?
Okay, so then explain it. There has to be SOME explanation as to why they"re all so pro-Obama. I mean, it could just be random luck, but if you flip a coin how often does it come up heads 20 out of 21 times?
7Lunar
#6: I mean, it could just be random luck, but if you flip a coin how often does it come up heads 20 out of 21 times?
You're spinning again. But to be fair, it's the same spin that was in the article's title, so whatever. In any case, the poll itself doesn't show what you seem to think it shows. Among the people in the countries surveyed, it shows Obama has a total approval rating of 50% (coin toss!) which is just a couple points higher than it is in the US.
The 20 out of 21 figure is just an artifact of Romney getting a much lower score. You might assume that means they really don't like Romney (which might be part of it), but it could also be due to the people surveyed not being as well-informed about US politics as the article wants you to think. Some of them might choose "no difference" or "I dunno," but rest of them could also be choosing Obama's name because the incumbent's name is more familiar-sounding. It's probably a mix of all those things as well as the false assumption also often made among Democratic circles that Obama must be "good" because the guy before him was "bad." Bush in particular was disliked worldwide for his "cowboy" image. Again, personality over policy.
ETA: Also, I think the fact that Romney's favorability was far more consistent than Obama's lends credence to the factor of incumbent familiarity. The article specifically notes that even when Obama "lost," Romney's score in Pakistan was comparable to what he scored elsewhere. Or maybe there's another explanation.
You're spinning again. But to be fair, it's the same spin that was in the article's title, so whatever. In any case, the poll itself doesn't show what you seem to think it shows. Among the people in the countries surveyed, it shows Obama has a total approval rating of 50% (coin toss!) which is just a couple points higher than it is in the US.
The 20 out of 21 figure is just an artifact of Romney getting a much lower score. You might assume that means they really don't like Romney (which might be part of it), but it could also be due to the people surveyed not being as well-informed about US politics as the article wants you to think. Some of them might choose "no difference" or "I dunno," but rest of them could also be choosing Obama's name because the incumbent's name is more familiar-sounding. It's probably a mix of all those things as well as the false assumption also often made among Democratic circles that Obama must be "good" because the guy before him was "bad." Bush in particular was disliked worldwide for his "cowboy" image. Again, personality over policy.
ETA: Also, I think the fact that Romney's favorability was far more consistent than Obama's lends credence to the factor of incumbent familiarity. The article specifically notes that even when Obama "lost," Romney's score in Pakistan was comparable to what he scored elsewhere. Or maybe there's another explanation.
8madpoet
Oddly, Republican presidents are more popular in China than Democratic ones. Nixon is a real hero, here. Clinton was unpopular because of the 'accidental' American bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, during his presidency. Also, he was relatively confrontational over trade issues. 'Little Bush', as Bush Jr. was called in China, didn't make any such missteps, so he was well liked. They're kind of ambivalent about Obama. So Romney has a pretty good chance of being liked by the Chinese, if elected.
9nathanielcampbell
I experienced this syndrome often when I lived in Germany. I think the primary culprit is that foreigners usually have little to no grasp of the domestic issues that play such a big role in American politics. They scratch their heads over electing George W. Bush twice because they have no understanding of how it is that domestic policy issues (and conservative domestic politics) play out -- all they see is U.S. foreign policy.
The odd thing with this poll (to me, at least) is that, despite their attempts to distinguish each other in the last debate, Romney and Obama substantially agree on foreign policy.
The odd thing with this poll (to me, at least) is that, despite their attempts to distinguish each other in the last debate, Romney and Obama substantially agree on foreign policy.
10geneg
I dunno. I've been known to scratch my head over electing BushCo twice and I'm quite familiar with American domestic politics.
12labwriter
>11 Amtep:. Hilarious. My family name is Roorda. What's yours?
13Arctic-Stranger
I was in Russia during Bush/Kerry election and they were scratching their heads. The military honchos in particular. They wanted to know why, when we were at war, we would elect a draft dodger vs someone who had military experience.
14madpoet
>9 nathanielcampbell:
The way any political leader is viewed abroad is often very different from how he or she is viewed at home. Gorbachev, for instance, is viewed much more favourably in the west than he is in Russia. The former Canadian Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, was well respected outside of Canada, but at home he alienated everybody, left and right, and became one of the most unpopular politicians in Canadian history.
Is it surprising, really, that the world is interested in the results of the U.S. election? It's still the world's largest economy and consumer market; the world's last superpower, with as powerful a military as the rest of the world combined; the world's largest market for illegal drugs; the leading weapons exporter; and it consumes more fossil fuels and contributes more to climate change than entire continents. Israel, Taiwan and South Korea owe their continuing existence/autonomy to the U.S., and have powerful enemies who would like to see a change in the status quo. Of course the world is watching to see who the next American President is.
The way any political leader is viewed abroad is often very different from how he or she is viewed at home. Gorbachev, for instance, is viewed much more favourably in the west than he is in Russia. The former Canadian Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, was well respected outside of Canada, but at home he alienated everybody, left and right, and became one of the most unpopular politicians in Canadian history.
Is it surprising, really, that the world is interested in the results of the U.S. election? It's still the world's largest economy and consumer market; the world's last superpower, with as powerful a military as the rest of the world combined; the world's largest market for illegal drugs; the leading weapons exporter; and it consumes more fossil fuels and contributes more to climate change than entire continents. Israel, Taiwan and South Korea owe their continuing existence/autonomy to the U.S., and have powerful enemies who would like to see a change in the status quo. Of course the world is watching to see who the next American President is.
