Well, if there had been any doubt about this election, close as the polls have been, it is over. The economic crisis has driven the last nail in the McCain/Palin coffin.
How did I reach this conclusion? Not from the polls. I've been reading the WSJ and watching Fox for the last week. Neither the paper nor the Republican news channel has shown any enthusiasm for the ticket and when forced to defend it do so with an air of "well, we have to at least go through the motions".
This was eminently clear after the VP debate when I watched Rove, Barnes, Krauthammer, etc. (a bunch of guys who look almost as old as McCain) trying to whip up some enthusiasm. These guys know politics and they know the race is over.
This doesn't thrill me. I think Obama is just about the least qualified and one of the least deserving people ever to run for the Presidency. He has no experience, no principles, nothing he wants to accomplish other than getting the job - which pretty much sums up his whole career. I suspect that Biden will do all the hard work. And, to make matters worse, his supporters, including the media, believe in him as if he were the Messiah. We can expect no public oversight or criticism. He can change his positions every day, as he has, and his defenders will defend him.
I console myself with the thought that Hillary will not be held responsible for his loss or for fixing the mess Bush is handing over to Obama.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
Best Reason not to support Obama: His Supporters
Bill and Hillary give some of the best speeches of their lives in support of Obama, but is that enough? No. His supporters in the media (print and video) and the so-called liberal blogosphere continue to snipe. They weren't sincere enough, they didn't praise him enough, they're not working hard enough for him.
In Iowa, Obama showed himself to be an ungracious winner. In New Hampshire, he showed himself to be a poor loser. Like leader, like follower.
The Obamanuts are a bunch of puerile, whining, disgusting, racist misogynists who have been running a negative campaign all year and just can't stop. There's nothing new or hopeful about these people. They are the Democrat version of Karl Rove's minions.
And I don't think I want this country to be run by them.
In Iowa, Obama showed himself to be an ungracious winner. In New Hampshire, he showed himself to be a poor loser. Like leader, like follower.
The Obamanuts are a bunch of puerile, whining, disgusting, racist misogynists who have been running a negative campaign all year and just can't stop. There's nothing new or hopeful about these people. They are the Democrat version of Karl Rove's minions.
And I don't think I want this country to be run by them.
Palin makes Hillary a Double-Edged Sword for Obama
I must admit that I had been hoping McCain would have the courage to choose a woman as his running mate, but I truly did not expect it. Although I would have preferred Christine Todd Wittman who, on all levels, is more qualified than Palin, I think it is, nonetheless, a coup for the Repugs. And the timing was a lot better than that 3AM text page of Obama's (a juvenile, sophomoric insulting trick): it takes some of the wind out of the earth shattering nature of Obama's nomination.
Obama's supporters have long been complaining that Hillary and Bill aren't working hard enough for him and if he loses, Hillary will be responsible (Obama, of course, bears absolutely no responsibility for his success or failure). But with the nomination of Palin (not a woman whose policies I support), Hillary becomes even more problematic for Obama. She is a superb campaigner and incredibly policy-smart. No matter how often she mentions Obama in a speech, her supporters (the ones who are, at best, lukewarm on Obama) can't help but be struck by the contrast in skills and intelligence with Palin whom Hillary outshines by a light-year. And what will they see? That Obama lacked the courage to do what McCain did: pick not only a woman, but a supremely qualified woman, the woman who got more votes than he did and, if one subtracted Cook County from the equation, would have had the nomination.
In addition, Obama's people can't criticize Palin for a lack of experience without bringing into the strong light of day just how little experience Obama has. If we're going to have a lightweight in the White House, I suspect most of us would prefer it to be the Veep, not the Pres.
Finally, if Obama loses in November, this should give Hillary a lock on the 2012 nomination.
Obama's supporters have long been complaining that Hillary and Bill aren't working hard enough for him and if he loses, Hillary will be responsible (Obama, of course, bears absolutely no responsibility for his success or failure). But with the nomination of Palin (not a woman whose policies I support), Hillary becomes even more problematic for Obama. She is a superb campaigner and incredibly policy-smart. No matter how often she mentions Obama in a speech, her supporters (the ones who are, at best, lukewarm on Obama) can't help but be struck by the contrast in skills and intelligence with Palin whom Hillary outshines by a light-year. And what will they see? That Obama lacked the courage to do what McCain did: pick not only a woman, but a supremely qualified woman, the woman who got more votes than he did and, if one subtracted Cook County from the equation, would have had the nomination.
In addition, Obama's people can't criticize Palin for a lack of experience without bringing into the strong light of day just how little experience Obama has. If we're going to have a lightweight in the White House, I suspect most of us would prefer it to be the Veep, not the Pres.
Finally, if Obama loses in November, this should give Hillary a lock on the 2012 nomination.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Why the Super Delegates Have Little Choice But Obama
Kristen Breitweiser (posted on Taylor Marsh:You Broke It You Own It ) asks how the Super Delegates will justify nominating Obama and losing the GE.
Here's why I think they must (in their minds) nominate Obama and how they will justify a Nov. loss.
Nominate Obama
1. Massive media support. The TV networks & major news magazines have already declared Obama to be the winner. It doesn't matter whether they are right at this time (they are NOT), they have created a perception that he is the Democratic nominee. So if the SDs vote for Hillary, they will be roundly and loudly and widely criticized for stealing the nomination from Obama. They will also be accused of being racists. The details (delegates, Florida and Michigan, etc., etc.) will not matter.
2. They can point to a lead in pledged delegates (even if that means excluding Florida and Michigan, because of the Rulz) and, possibly, in votes (although we won't know that for sure for a couple of more weeks.)
3. Obama has already given 2-3x as much to SDs for their election campaigns as Hillary has. I have no doubt that he is waving dollar bills under the noses of the remaining udecided SDs.
3. Most of Hillary's supporters will vote for Obama.
4. So Obama loses the GE. How do the SDs defend themselves? They will blame Hillary for staying in the race so long that Obama didn't have the time to campaign against McCain. They will also claim that Americans as a whole are more racist than Democrats and those racists were the margin of victory. This may work if the election is close. It will, of course, fall flat if McCain wins big. They will also point out that there is no proof that Hillary could have done better.
Nominate Hillary
5. Same as #1 above. SDs are human, too. The media backlash for voting against Obama will be vicious.
6. They would have to include Florida & Michigan in spite of the Rulz. Florida can be easily justified. Michigan cannot, even if Obama chose not to put his name on the ballot. Then they would have to say that votes (assuming Hillary gets the most votes) count more than delegates even though it has always been the delegate count that has mattered (that this is probably because there's never been such a close nominating race under the current rules is irrelevant.)
7. The Democratic Party will lose almost all the African American votes, and possibly destroy that base for the future.
8. If Hillary wins, the media will say that Obama could have won, too and should have been the nominee. If she loses, the media and Obama's supporters will claim that he could have won and if the SDs had followed the lead of the Party (delegates, states, caucuses, etc.), a Democrat would be President.
Conclusion
If the nominee wins and that nominee is Hillary, there will still be considerable dissent in the Party on the part of the Obama supporters. The media will criticize every little thing that Hillary does for 4 years, or more.
If the nominee is Obama, there will be vast media support for his Presidency and, possibly, an extended honeymoon ala Bush 43's. Disgruntled Hillary supporters will disappear from view (not to be unexpected since her supporters have been ignored by the media for months).
If the nominee loses and that nominee is Hillary, they will face the wrath of the media and Obama supporters (which we have already seen can be massive).
If the nominee loses and that nominee is Obama, they will blame Hillary and racist Americans. The media will support them.
Each SD will be weighing the consequences of a vote in terms of his or her own electability. They perceive that a vote for Obama, even if he loses in the GE, will be more advantageous (or less disadvantageous) than a vote for Hillary.
In short, the cost of being wrong about Obama is lower than the cost of being wrong about Hillary.
(see also Obama: Super Delegates and Affirmative Action)
Here's why I think they must (in their minds) nominate Obama and how they will justify a Nov. loss.
Nominate Obama
1. Massive media support. The TV networks & major news magazines have already declared Obama to be the winner. It doesn't matter whether they are right at this time (they are NOT), they have created a perception that he is the Democratic nominee. So if the SDs vote for Hillary, they will be roundly and loudly and widely criticized for stealing the nomination from Obama. They will also be accused of being racists. The details (delegates, Florida and Michigan, etc., etc.) will not matter.
2. They can point to a lead in pledged delegates (even if that means excluding Florida and Michigan, because of the Rulz) and, possibly, in votes (although we won't know that for sure for a couple of more weeks.)
3. Obama has already given 2-3x as much to SDs for their election campaigns as Hillary has. I have no doubt that he is waving dollar bills under the noses of the remaining udecided SDs.
3. Most of Hillary's supporters will vote for Obama.
4. So Obama loses the GE. How do the SDs defend themselves? They will blame Hillary for staying in the race so long that Obama didn't have the time to campaign against McCain. They will also claim that Americans as a whole are more racist than Democrats and those racists were the margin of victory. This may work if the election is close. It will, of course, fall flat if McCain wins big. They will also point out that there is no proof that Hillary could have done better.
Nominate Hillary
5. Same as #1 above. SDs are human, too. The media backlash for voting against Obama will be vicious.
6. They would have to include Florida & Michigan in spite of the Rulz. Florida can be easily justified. Michigan cannot, even if Obama chose not to put his name on the ballot. Then they would have to say that votes (assuming Hillary gets the most votes) count more than delegates even though it has always been the delegate count that has mattered (that this is probably because there's never been such a close nominating race under the current rules is irrelevant.)
7. The Democratic Party will lose almost all the African American votes, and possibly destroy that base for the future.
8. If Hillary wins, the media will say that Obama could have won, too and should have been the nominee. If she loses, the media and Obama's supporters will claim that he could have won and if the SDs had followed the lead of the Party (delegates, states, caucuses, etc.), a Democrat would be President.
Conclusion
If the nominee wins and that nominee is Hillary, there will still be considerable dissent in the Party on the part of the Obama supporters. The media will criticize every little thing that Hillary does for 4 years, or more.
If the nominee is Obama, there will be vast media support for his Presidency and, possibly, an extended honeymoon ala Bush 43's. Disgruntled Hillary supporters will disappear from view (not to be unexpected since her supporters have been ignored by the media for months).
If the nominee loses and that nominee is Hillary, they will face the wrath of the media and Obama supporters (which we have already seen can be massive).
If the nominee loses and that nominee is Obama, they will blame Hillary and racist Americans. The media will support them.
Each SD will be weighing the consequences of a vote in terms of his or her own electability. They perceive that a vote for Obama, even if he loses in the GE, will be more advantageous (or less disadvantageous) than a vote for Hillary.
In short, the cost of being wrong about Obama is lower than the cost of being wrong about Hillary.
(see also Obama: Super Delegates and Affirmative Action)
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
The NARAL Endorsement - 3 Theories
To quote the Illinois Chapter of Illinois chapter of NOW:
So why did the National NARAL endorse Obama? I have 3 theories.
1. He offered to funnel a large amount of money to NARAL.
2. He offered a "seat at the table" in his administration: i.e., one or more high-paid jobs.
3. NARAL realized that with a Democratic President in the White House and a Democratic Congress, thus ensuring protection of the right to choose, NARAL's funding and membership would dry up. With a Republican in the White House, Mr. McCain, NARAL would still be needed. So, by endorsing Obama they hope to add to the bandwagon effect, to ensure that a candidate who cannot beat McCain in the GE will get the Democratic nomination - and NARAL will continue to exist.
Too Machiavellian? No. Self-preservation is a primal force for organizations as well as human beings. So NARAL's self-preservation is more important than the rights of women? Well, I'm sure they convinced themselves that with a Democratic Congress, womens' rights would still be preserved - but with an anti-choice Republican President, there would be just enough uncertainty to keep the money and memberships flowing in.
As a State Senator, Barack Obama voted ‘present’ on seven abortion bills, including a ban on 'partial birth abortion,' two parental notification laws and three 'born alive' bills. In each case, the right vote was clear, but Senator Obama chose political cover over standing and fighting for his convictions. When we needed someone to take a stand, Senator Obama took a pass. He wasn’t there for us then and we don’t expect him to be now.
So why did the National NARAL endorse Obama? I have 3 theories.
1. He offered to funnel a large amount of money to NARAL.
2. He offered a "seat at the table" in his administration: i.e., one or more high-paid jobs.
3. NARAL realized that with a Democratic President in the White House and a Democratic Congress, thus ensuring protection of the right to choose, NARAL's funding and membership would dry up. With a Republican in the White House, Mr. McCain, NARAL would still be needed. So, by endorsing Obama they hope to add to the bandwagon effect, to ensure that a candidate who cannot beat McCain in the GE will get the Democratic nomination - and NARAL will continue to exist.
Too Machiavellian? No. Self-preservation is a primal force for organizations as well as human beings. So NARAL's self-preservation is more important than the rights of women? Well, I'm sure they convinced themselves that with a Democratic Congress, womens' rights would still be preserved - but with an anti-choice Republican President, there would be just enough uncertainty to keep the money and memberships flowing in.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
After Pennsylvania - The Math - Plus Ça Change....
Well, the day after and nothing has changed. Obama's supporters and the media say that Hillary's win doesn't matter. She didn't pick up that many delegates and will lose them in North Carolina - which has many more delegates than Indiana and is owned by Obama. (38% of the registered Democrats are African American.) Hillary's forces don't deny that they will lose N.C. They just hope it will be a respectable loss.
Then, of course, there is "The Math". Some of the calculations, by supporters of both Hillary and Obama are wondrous in their complexity. After all, there is a lot to work with: Florida and Michigan - to count or not and if to count, how. Turning caucus votes into "real" votes. Even the pledged delegate votes have some wiggle room due to the multi-stage process of assigning them. Then there are the maps of electoral votes vs. primary & caucus wins. And so on and so on. The one constant amidst all of this complexity is that the method employed always ends up supporting the designer's preferred candidate. It is unlikely that any of them will impress a supporter of the opposite candidate, although the designers hope their models will influence the Super Delegates (SDs).
Will the SDs be impressed by these models? I doubt it. I've discussed my analysis of their decision making earlier, but will repeat and add a bit here.
The SDs want the Democrats to win in November. But they have a couple of perhaps insurmountable obstacles.
1. Supporters of one candidate who say they won't vote for the other candidate.
I think these percentages are overstated and represent the gulf that has opened up between the two camps in the past several months. I blame Obama's supporters for this gulf, but, then, I am a Hillary supporter. But, when the proverbial push comes to the proverbial shove, most will vote for the Democrat. There are, however, and unfortunately, a couple of exceptions.
Hillary's voters:
Certainly, some of Hillary's supporters will either sit on their hands next November or vote for McCain. I think this is most likely to happen in Florida if its votes are not counted in full, as voted. Who will switch from Hillary to McCain rather than to Obama? Most likely the older voters. They may not approve of many of McCain's ideas, but I suspect that given a choice between a man of their generation, a war hero and the guy (Obama) they think stole the nomination from Hillary by disenfranchising them, they will go for McCain and probably in large enough numbers (it doesn't take many in Florida) to swing the state to the Republicans.
Obama's voters:
Yes, some of the white elitists will sit on their hands, write in a name, or even vote for McCain. They have done this before (voting against their political interests) to disastrous effect going back to Nixon vs. Humphrey. But they are not the main problem the SDs must consider.
The main problem is the African American vote. It has gone 90% for Obama. Barring some major misstep on his part, it will take very little in the way of "math" to make an SD vote for Hillary appear to be racist. SDs are not dumb. They know this. For the Democratic Party to deprive an African American candidate of the nomination when even some, not to say most, of the numbers favor him will likely do to the Party a variation of what LBJ's Civil Rights movement did to the Party. LBJ knew he was turning over the South to the Republicans. The SDs may rightly believe that a majority of AAs will not vote for McCain. But they will also, rightly I think, assume that enough AAs will sit home to deprive Hillary of a win in November.
There are two ways to solve the Florida problem.
The first, of course, is to count Florida but not Michigan. (Michigan's voters might get just as mad, but most will admit that since Obama's name was not on the ballot, it wouldn't be fair to give the state to Hillary. True, it is Obama who refused to accept a revote, but relatively few of the Democratic voters, in my estimation, realize that.)
The second is for Hillary to drop out. And that is why there is such a clamor for her to do just that. There is simply no way to finesse the African American vote. Her voters will be disappointed if she drops out, but they will be furious if they think that Obama stole the nomination (by pressure on the SDs or some version of "The Math".)
Do I want Hillary to fight until the end? Yes. Do I think that Obama can win in November under any circumstance? No. Not because he is AA (think Colin Powell), but because he is so clearly unprepared for the job compared to McCain. However, I also think the odds are against Hillary's winning in November (the misogyny her campaign has exposed is greater than anything we could have anticipated.). Not so great that she couldn't pull out a victory, but it would be a victory that would leave an uncomfortably large segment of the Democratic Party unwilling to give her the support she would need as President.
I hope I am wrong, but I fear that we have backed ourselves into a corner from which there is no conceivable good way out.
Then, of course, there is "The Math". Some of the calculations, by supporters of both Hillary and Obama are wondrous in their complexity. After all, there is a lot to work with: Florida and Michigan - to count or not and if to count, how. Turning caucus votes into "real" votes. Even the pledged delegate votes have some wiggle room due to the multi-stage process of assigning them. Then there are the maps of electoral votes vs. primary & caucus wins. And so on and so on. The one constant amidst all of this complexity is that the method employed always ends up supporting the designer's preferred candidate. It is unlikely that any of them will impress a supporter of the opposite candidate, although the designers hope their models will influence the Super Delegates (SDs).
Will the SDs be impressed by these models? I doubt it. I've discussed my analysis of their decision making earlier, but will repeat and add a bit here.
The SDs want the Democrats to win in November. But they have a couple of perhaps insurmountable obstacles.
1. Supporters of one candidate who say they won't vote for the other candidate.
I think these percentages are overstated and represent the gulf that has opened up between the two camps in the past several months. I blame Obama's supporters for this gulf, but, then, I am a Hillary supporter. But, when the proverbial push comes to the proverbial shove, most will vote for the Democrat. There are, however, and unfortunately, a couple of exceptions.
Hillary's voters:
Certainly, some of Hillary's supporters will either sit on their hands next November or vote for McCain. I think this is most likely to happen in Florida if its votes are not counted in full, as voted. Who will switch from Hillary to McCain rather than to Obama? Most likely the older voters. They may not approve of many of McCain's ideas, but I suspect that given a choice between a man of their generation, a war hero and the guy (Obama) they think stole the nomination from Hillary by disenfranchising them, they will go for McCain and probably in large enough numbers (it doesn't take many in Florida) to swing the state to the Republicans.
Obama's voters:
Yes, some of the white elitists will sit on their hands, write in a name, or even vote for McCain. They have done this before (voting against their political interests) to disastrous effect going back to Nixon vs. Humphrey. But they are not the main problem the SDs must consider.
The main problem is the African American vote. It has gone 90% for Obama. Barring some major misstep on his part, it will take very little in the way of "math" to make an SD vote for Hillary appear to be racist. SDs are not dumb. They know this. For the Democratic Party to deprive an African American candidate of the nomination when even some, not to say most, of the numbers favor him will likely do to the Party a variation of what LBJ's Civil Rights movement did to the Party. LBJ knew he was turning over the South to the Republicans. The SDs may rightly believe that a majority of AAs will not vote for McCain. But they will also, rightly I think, assume that enough AAs will sit home to deprive Hillary of a win in November.
There are two ways to solve the Florida problem.
The first, of course, is to count Florida but not Michigan. (Michigan's voters might get just as mad, but most will admit that since Obama's name was not on the ballot, it wouldn't be fair to give the state to Hillary. True, it is Obama who refused to accept a revote, but relatively few of the Democratic voters, in my estimation, realize that.)
The second is for Hillary to drop out. And that is why there is such a clamor for her to do just that. There is simply no way to finesse the African American vote. Her voters will be disappointed if she drops out, but they will be furious if they think that Obama stole the nomination (by pressure on the SDs or some version of "The Math".)
Do I want Hillary to fight until the end? Yes. Do I think that Obama can win in November under any circumstance? No. Not because he is AA (think Colin Powell), but because he is so clearly unprepared for the job compared to McCain. However, I also think the odds are against Hillary's winning in November (the misogyny her campaign has exposed is greater than anything we could have anticipated.). Not so great that she couldn't pull out a victory, but it would be a victory that would leave an uncomfortably large segment of the Democratic Party unwilling to give her the support she would need as President.
I hope I am wrong, but I fear that we have backed ourselves into a corner from which there is no conceivable good way out.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Poor Obama. He's going to have to go negative now?
I suppose it was to be expected. Obama lost in Pennsylvania because of Hillary's negative attacks. So now, the poor guy, in spite of all of his better instincts, is going to have to go negative?
This is what? The 100th time we've heard this. When, exactly, has he not been negative? I seem to recall his starting out the campaign by saying she was too old. Well, OK, he didn't exactly say she was too old. He just said, my paraphrase, that she was stuck in the old, adversary politics of the 60s. And it's pretty much gone downhill from there.
But there is a bigger issue here: the definition of "negative". As applied to Hillary, it appears to mean any attack of any kind against Obama: experience, positions, relationships with questionable people, public statements. None of these are acceptable targets.
Once upon a time, "negative" meant untruthful, distorted, grossly unfair. Now, at least for Hillary, it means any attempt to draw a distinction between her qualifications and his.
Similarly, "attack" is now a completely negative word. What, pray tell, should one call an attempt to draw distinctions between oneself and one's opponent?
This is what? The 100th time we've heard this. When, exactly, has he not been negative? I seem to recall his starting out the campaign by saying she was too old. Well, OK, he didn't exactly say she was too old. He just said, my paraphrase, that she was stuck in the old, adversary politics of the 60s. And it's pretty much gone downhill from there.
But there is a bigger issue here: the definition of "negative". As applied to Hillary, it appears to mean any attack of any kind against Obama: experience, positions, relationships with questionable people, public statements. None of these are acceptable targets.
Once upon a time, "negative" meant untruthful, distorted, grossly unfair. Now, at least for Hillary, it means any attempt to draw a distinction between her qualifications and his.
Similarly, "attack" is now a completely negative word. What, pray tell, should one call an attempt to draw distinctions between oneself and one's opponent?
Is Obama a Coward?
Well, let's see.
1. He (or his many, many surrogates) have been asking Hillary to quit since, when? March? In spite of the fact that he has had, according to "everybody that matters" an insurmountable lead by all possible criteria. You would think that he would appreciate the opportunity to expand his lead, right? Well, no. Perhaps because he's been afraid that his lead would shrink rather than grow?
2. He nixed revotes in Florida and Michigan. Again, they offered him an opportunity to expand his lead. Hillary, who most definitely won Florida and arguably won Michigan, has supported revotes in both states even knowing that she would be risking losing them because, of course, Obama was unstoppable.
3. He cancelled the pre-primary debate in North Carolina. Could it be because he doesn't do very well in debates? And he was worse than usual in the Pennsylvania debate? (it doesn't matter whether the questions were proper or not. None of them should have been a surprise, and Jon Stewart's clips of Obama from that debate showed that he couldn't frame a decent answer to either the gotcha questions or some of the policy questions.)
So, yea, I'd say that Obama is a coward.
1. He (or his many, many surrogates) have been asking Hillary to quit since, when? March? In spite of the fact that he has had, according to "everybody that matters" an insurmountable lead by all possible criteria. You would think that he would appreciate the opportunity to expand his lead, right? Well, no. Perhaps because he's been afraid that his lead would shrink rather than grow?
2. He nixed revotes in Florida and Michigan. Again, they offered him an opportunity to expand his lead. Hillary, who most definitely won Florida and arguably won Michigan, has supported revotes in both states even knowing that she would be risking losing them because, of course, Obama was unstoppable.
3. He cancelled the pre-primary debate in North Carolina. Could it be because he doesn't do very well in debates? And he was worse than usual in the Pennsylvania debate? (it doesn't matter whether the questions were proper or not. None of them should have been a surprise, and Jon Stewart's clips of Obama from that debate showed that he couldn't frame a decent answer to either the gotcha questions or some of the policy questions.)
So, yea, I'd say that Obama is a coward.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Another Reason for Hillary to Stay in the Race
While working on the prior post about why Obama's supporters want Hillary to quit, it occurred to me that there is a reason, other than hoping she will eventually get the nomination, that Hillary should stay in.
If Hillary stays in until the end, and the nomination gets decided by Super Delegates, either her supporters or Obama's will feel cheated. This is GOOD.
I know that is counter-intuitive, but only if one focuses solely on this election. If, however, one looks at the system from a longer-term perspective, this outcome should be beneficial if it leads to a revised and more rational primary system.
What should be the purpose of a primary system? To nominate the person who best represents the will of the Party's members. The current system does not accomplish this and is little better than the smoke-filled room.
The problems with the current primary system are well known.
1. Iowa and New Hampshire as gate-keepers
With the exception of the people who live in these two states, everybody realizes that their gate-keeper function is anti-democratic and damaging. Only candidates with relatively deep pockets can survive a loss in these two states especially because the media consider the outcomes to be definitive, in every sense of the word.
2. Caucuses vs. primaries
The sheer idiocy of having caucuses can be seen in Texas this year where it appears that Obama may win more delegates (due to the caucuses) than Hillary in spite of her trouncing him in the popular vote.
There is simply nothing democratic about a caucus. Turnout is low compared to that in a primary. Only people with spare time on their hands can attend. Peer pressure can easily overwhelm personal wishes when people must publicly state their preferences.
3. The primary season
Although primaries & caucuses are scheduled from Jan. - June, everybody seems to want and expect the nominee to be chosen by March. This is absurd. It means that both parties have set things up so that many, if not most, of the states have no say at all in who becomes the nominee because they vote too late. This is the reason so many states, including Florida and Michigan, moved their primaries up this year.
It is unfair in the extreme to create a system that disenfranchises many, if not most, of a Party's members.
All of these problems have been apparent for years, but nobody does anything to fix them. The Party bigwigs seem content to have a few states determine the nominee - no matter how badly the nominee may fare in the general election.
But if this year's Democratic nominee is chosen by Super Delegates, there will be enormous pressure on the DNC to finally fix the system. (Anglachel has a proposal worth serious attention by the DNC. )
I know that many will argue that I am right, but this is the wrong time. Winning the GE is too important this year. Unfortunately, it is precisely because this election is so important to Democrats (and, really, be honest, what election in the history of the country has not been important?) that we must ride it out to the end.
The DNC must change the system and the only way to make them change the system is to have a nominee (be it Hillary or Obama) who is not viewed as the legitimate winner by a large number of Democrats. If Hillary quits, this won't happen. If she stays in, it's pretty much inevitable.
If Hillary stays in until the end, and the nomination gets decided by Super Delegates, either her supporters or Obama's will feel cheated. This is GOOD.
I know that is counter-intuitive, but only if one focuses solely on this election. If, however, one looks at the system from a longer-term perspective, this outcome should be beneficial if it leads to a revised and more rational primary system.
What should be the purpose of a primary system? To nominate the person who best represents the will of the Party's members. The current system does not accomplish this and is little better than the smoke-filled room.
The problems with the current primary system are well known.
1. Iowa and New Hampshire as gate-keepers
With the exception of the people who live in these two states, everybody realizes that their gate-keeper function is anti-democratic and damaging. Only candidates with relatively deep pockets can survive a loss in these two states especially because the media consider the outcomes to be definitive, in every sense of the word.
2. Caucuses vs. primaries
The sheer idiocy of having caucuses can be seen in Texas this year where it appears that Obama may win more delegates (due to the caucuses) than Hillary in spite of her trouncing him in the popular vote.
There is simply nothing democratic about a caucus. Turnout is low compared to that in a primary. Only people with spare time on their hands can attend. Peer pressure can easily overwhelm personal wishes when people must publicly state their preferences.
3. The primary season
Although primaries & caucuses are scheduled from Jan. - June, everybody seems to want and expect the nominee to be chosen by March. This is absurd. It means that both parties have set things up so that many, if not most, of the states have no say at all in who becomes the nominee because they vote too late. This is the reason so many states, including Florida and Michigan, moved their primaries up this year.
It is unfair in the extreme to create a system that disenfranchises many, if not most, of a Party's members.
All of these problems have been apparent for years, but nobody does anything to fix them. The Party bigwigs seem content to have a few states determine the nominee - no matter how badly the nominee may fare in the general election.
But if this year's Democratic nominee is chosen by Super Delegates, there will be enormous pressure on the DNC to finally fix the system. (Anglachel has a proposal worth serious attention by the DNC. )
I know that many will argue that I am right, but this is the wrong time. Winning the GE is too important this year. Unfortunately, it is precisely because this election is so important to Democrats (and, really, be honest, what election in the history of the country has not been important?) that we must ride it out to the end.
The DNC must change the system and the only way to make them change the system is to have a nominee (be it Hillary or Obama) who is not viewed as the legitimate winner by a large number of Democrats. If Hillary quits, this won't happen. If she stays in, it's pretty much inevitable.
The Real Reason They Want Her To Quit
After reading yet another hyperbolic demand that Hillary withdraw from the race before she destroys Obama, The Democratic Party, the Unites States of America and Western Civilization, I decided to sit down and work through my interpretation of these calls (which can be summarized as "She Can't Win and He Will Be The Nominee No Matter What She Does So She Should Quit"):
Their Reasons (my interpretation)
1. It will destroy Obama.
I don't see how. They assure us that he is the nominee already in all but name.
2. It hurts Obama's chances against McCain because Obama can't campaign against McCain.
Well, if Obama is not free to campaign against McCain (because Obama is not yet the nominee), McCain by that same token is not free to campaign against Obama because, of course, Obama is not yet the nominee. So, no advantage to either side. There is, however, nothing about the current situation to prevent Obama from campaigning against McCain (or vice versa). He certainly has enough money.
3. Hillary's attacks will hurt Obama in the Fall.
If they haven't been damaging enough to keep him from being the presumptive nominee, why should they hurt him against McCain? And it is hard to believe that, at this stage, she could say anything that McCain doesn't already know or can't find out on his own. I vaguely remember a Republican by the name of George H. W. Bush deriding his opponent Reagan's economic plan as "voodoo economics" in 1980. Now, who won the Republican nomination and the election? Hmmm, let me think, gee whiz, it was Reagan.
4. It is distracting Obama from his need to focus on McCain.
What's distracting? He is the presumptive nominee. Nothing she does can change that, so why are they worried? He knows this to be true, so he doesn't have to spend any of his valuable time on Hillary. He can focus on McCain if that is what he should do.
The REAL reason: Fear of Losing
All of the above reasons and their variations are rationalizations and, deep down, their supporters know this. You see: Obama has only two ways to win (unless Hillary really blows it in the remaining primaries): Hillary can drop out or he can get more Super Delegates than she can. And that is the problem. If Hillary does not drop out and if, this is key, she beats him soundly in most of the remaining primaries, his claim to the nomination will be weakened.
For the DNC:
If Hillary does not drop out, and Obama can't reach the magic number of delegates, the DNC has two problems it must face:
1. Florida and Michigan
2. Super Delegates choosing the nominee.
The DNC, of course, does not want to deal with either.
For Obama and his supporters:
Consider a worst-case scenario: Hillary wins most of the remaining primaries & soundly trounces him. Perhaps she comes out slightly ahead in the popular vote while significantly narrowing his lead in pledged delegates. NOTE: I am not predicting this will happen or even that it is likely. I'm simply posing a worst-case scenario for Obama as an explanation for the demand that Hillary withdraw.
Obama will then have to convince the Super Delegates that his wins mean more than Hillary's wins. There are lots of ways to do this. The one Obama's supporters use most often (in addition to pledged delegates & the popular vote) is that he has won more states. Hillary's supporters argue that she has won more of the larger & more important states.
On The Hillary 1000 (Mar. 8, 2008), Donna Darko argues that, based on turnout, results in caucus states should mean less than results in primary states.
Related to this argument by Darko are the arguments that winning a majority of the states that held primaries is more indicative of potential success in the Fall than winning a majority of the states that held caucuses.
The New Editor pointed out that (prior to the Pennsylvania primary) most of Obama's popular vote margin can be attributed to Cook County in Illinois.
Sean Wilentz points out that the results would be different if the Democratic Party used a winner-take-all system instead of the current system.
The Reclusive Leftist has maps comparing Obama's wins to electoral results in 1996 (the last time Democrats won the WH).
I am not suggesting that the Democratic Party change the rules ex post facto. I am simply arguing that, under the above stated circumstances, the Super Delegates who have not yet committed themselves will need some criteria other than the primary results to determine which candidate to support, and that looking at the results of the primary season in different ways may be one method they will use.
Obama and his supporters do not want to be in this position in June. The only ways they can avoid this scenario are for Hillary to fail miserably between now and June or for her to drop out.
The real reason they want her to quit? In one word: FEAR.
Their Reasons (my interpretation)
1. It will destroy Obama.
I don't see how. They assure us that he is the nominee already in all but name.
2. It hurts Obama's chances against McCain because Obama can't campaign against McCain.
Well, if Obama is not free to campaign against McCain (because Obama is not yet the nominee), McCain by that same token is not free to campaign against Obama because, of course, Obama is not yet the nominee. So, no advantage to either side. There is, however, nothing about the current situation to prevent Obama from campaigning against McCain (or vice versa). He certainly has enough money.
3. Hillary's attacks will hurt Obama in the Fall.
If they haven't been damaging enough to keep him from being the presumptive nominee, why should they hurt him against McCain? And it is hard to believe that, at this stage, she could say anything that McCain doesn't already know or can't find out on his own. I vaguely remember a Republican by the name of George H. W. Bush deriding his opponent Reagan's economic plan as "voodoo economics" in 1980. Now, who won the Republican nomination and the election? Hmmm, let me think, gee whiz, it was Reagan.
4. It is distracting Obama from his need to focus on McCain.
What's distracting? He is the presumptive nominee. Nothing she does can change that, so why are they worried? He knows this to be true, so he doesn't have to spend any of his valuable time on Hillary. He can focus on McCain if that is what he should do.
The REAL reason: Fear of Losing
All of the above reasons and their variations are rationalizations and, deep down, their supporters know this. You see: Obama has only two ways to win (unless Hillary really blows it in the remaining primaries): Hillary can drop out or he can get more Super Delegates than she can. And that is the problem. If Hillary does not drop out and if, this is key, she beats him soundly in most of the remaining primaries, his claim to the nomination will be weakened.
For the DNC:
If Hillary does not drop out, and Obama can't reach the magic number of delegates, the DNC has two problems it must face:
1. Florida and Michigan
2. Super Delegates choosing the nominee.
The DNC, of course, does not want to deal with either.
For Obama and his supporters:
Consider a worst-case scenario: Hillary wins most of the remaining primaries & soundly trounces him. Perhaps she comes out slightly ahead in the popular vote while significantly narrowing his lead in pledged delegates. NOTE: I am not predicting this will happen or even that it is likely. I'm simply posing a worst-case scenario for Obama as an explanation for the demand that Hillary withdraw.
Obama will then have to convince the Super Delegates that his wins mean more than Hillary's wins. There are lots of ways to do this. The one Obama's supporters use most often (in addition to pledged delegates & the popular vote) is that he has won more states. Hillary's supporters argue that she has won more of the larger & more important states.
On The Hillary 1000 (Mar. 8, 2008), Donna Darko argues that, based on turnout, results in caucus states should mean less than results in primary states.
Related to this argument by Darko are the arguments that winning a majority of the states that held primaries is more indicative of potential success in the Fall than winning a majority of the states that held caucuses.
The New Editor pointed out that (prior to the Pennsylvania primary) most of Obama's popular vote margin can be attributed to Cook County in Illinois.
Sean Wilentz points out that the results would be different if the Democratic Party used a winner-take-all system instead of the current system.
The Reclusive Leftist has maps comparing Obama's wins to electoral results in 1996 (the last time Democrats won the WH).
I am not suggesting that the Democratic Party change the rules ex post facto. I am simply arguing that, under the above stated circumstances, the Super Delegates who have not yet committed themselves will need some criteria other than the primary results to determine which candidate to support, and that looking at the results of the primary season in different ways may be one method they will use.
Obama and his supporters do not want to be in this position in June. The only ways they can avoid this scenario are for Hillary to fail miserably between now and June or for her to drop out.
The real reason they want her to quit? In one word: FEAR.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
