Thursday, May 1st, 2008

Time	Event
1:22p	How the Democrats screwed themselves Someday I'd like to have a nice, friendly chat with the people who came up with the Democrat Party's current method of selecting a nominee. I'd have one question: "WTF were you thinking?" Let's see if I have the logic straight here: concerned that the Democrat Primary voters might "fall in love" with the "wrong" candidate, the designers arranged it so that the voters only got to pick 80% of the voting delegates to the convention. The other 20% would be "super delegates", "party elders" who would have "the best interests of the part" at heart, and so how could step in in a close race and "save the Party from itself" (which is to say, from those idiot voters). And yes, that last little aside is fair. Because the only reason to set things up this way is if you want the option of those super delegates overriding the choice of the voters. If you trust the voters to make the right decision, or if you're at least willing to let the voters decide, then you give them 100% of the votes, not 80%. So, for just a moment, let's look at this decision from an entirely practical, but abstract, perspective (i.e. not in the context of the current campaign): You've got a tightly contested race, that's going down to the convention. Neither candidate is able to win 62.5% of the available delegates (62.5% * .8 = 50%). One candidate is in the lead, but the Party Establishment thinks (s)he's too radical, and "can't win" in the general election. So the Party Establishment (in the form of the "super delegates") decides to pick "the best candidate", and awards the nomination to the candidate who came in 2nd place with the voters. (IOW, the super delegates "do the job for which they were created".) Now, imagine the response of the voters to this action. Especially, imagine the response of the primary voters who just got a big "f*ck you" from the Party Establishment. (Which, BTW, does not just mean the people who voted for the candidate who was denied the nomination. Every voter from the primary has just been told "your vote doesn't matter.") How many of those people are going to go out and work for that candidate in the general election? How many of them are going to riot at the convention (see "Days of Rage", Chicago, 1968)? WTF were they thinking? Now, let's consider how this has actually turned out. The Clinton campaign has known for over a month that there was no way they could catch up with Obama in the delegate tallies. If there were no super delegates, if all the delegates were chosen by the voters, then the campaign would have been over before the PA primary. Specifically, it would have been over before the whole Rev Wright thing blew up in Obama's face. Before the whole "bitter people clinging to their guns and their religion" thing had blown up in Obama's face. Stories that were pushed not by the Republicans, but by the Clinton campaign and its allies. Stories that would not have gotten anything like the same coverage if the Democrat Primary race was over, and Obama was the presumptive Democrat Party nominee. So, w/o the "super delegates", you have an end of the campaign in early March, and 6 months to prepare for the general election. With the "super delegates", you have another 5 months of bitter intra-party fighting, and a nasty fight at the convention that won't leave anybody happy. Brilliant. Simply brilliant. Current Mood: thoughtful Current Music: Scorpions: No One Like You (1 Comment | Comment on this)
1:58p	What's on the minds of the "super delegates" If you're trying to figure out how the "super delegates" are going to vote, the first question you have to ask yourself is "what do the 'super delegates' want?" To answer that you have to answer the question "who are the super delegates?" And the answer to that is that the vast majority of them are Democrats currently elected to publish office. Many of whom are people who are up for re-election this year, or who have colleagues up for re-election in November. So, what do they want? They want to get re-elected. If they're not up for re-election (or if they're not in a seriously contested race), they want those Democrats who are in tight races to win. Which is to say: they'd like to see the Democrat Party retain control of the House, Senate, and all the State Legislatures that they currently control, and they'd like to defeat Republicans in tight races where control can be affected. If they could win the Presidency, too, that would be nice. But if you're a Democrat in Congress (esp. if you're chairman of a committee), keeping Democrat Party control of your chamber is a hell of a lot more important to you than the Democrat nominee winning the White House. So, from that perspective: what will the super delegates do? Frankly, i can't envision them doing the Republican Party the huge favor they'd be doing by giving the nomination to Clinton. John McCain is not popular with the Republican Party base. At all. For a lot of really good reasons. He's going to have a good deal of work cut out for himself trying to get them motivated to go to the polls and vote for him. OTOH, the Republican base hates the Clintons. Especially Hillary Rodham Clinton. Before the voting started, polls consistently showed that 47 - 49% of voters would not vote for Clinton, no matter who she was running against. As far as I know, those numbers haven't changed. If you want an energized, active Republican base, that's eager to get out and vote, make Clinton the Democrat Party nominee for President. IF you want a depressed, apathetic Democrat Party base, "steal" the nomination from Obama and give it to Clinton. Clinton's been running for President since 2000. She (and everyone else) figured that her name meant she had the Democrat Party nomination sewed up, and so she needed to focus on winning the general election. Which meant she needed to stay towards the center, and work to decrease the intensity of the hatred that built up against her in the 1990s. As a consequence, the party (non-union, non-black) base, which never trusted the Clintons after Bill's "triangulation" as President, doesn't like her. Which is why they flocked first around Edwards, and now Obama. These people are not going to be pleased if the Party Establishment overturns the will of the voters, and choses Clinton. Then there are the black voters, who give the Democrats 90+% of their votes. How do you think they would react to the white Party Establishment stealing the election from the black candidate, and giving it to the white one? Now, imagine you're a Democrat member of the House or Senate, or a Governor, up for re-election. You won your last race by 5 - 10%. Or your a Democrat member of the House or Senate, who likes being in the Majority party, and are aware of how many of your collegues won their last election in a close race. Are you going to chose Clinton over Obama? Current Mood: thoughtful Current Music: Billy Joel: Big Shot (7 Comments | Comment on this)
10:42p	This is what "class" looks like Two softball teams were playing in Eastern Washington yesterday. A senior who had never before hit a home run hit one. She missed first base, stopped to go back and tag it, and blew out her right ACL. She fell to the ground in agony. The umpires ruled that she couldn't be touched by her teammates, and that if she couldn't continue on, the home run would be wiped out, it would be scored as a single, and the team could then bring in a pinch runner for her. The other team's Frst baseman, Mallory Holtman, asked if it was ok for her to touch the player. It was. So she and shortstop Liz Wallace lifted Sara Tucholsky, and carried her to each base so should could touch it, and get her first ever (and probably last ever) home run. ( The player being carried by two opponents ) Current Mood: happy Current Music: Smash Mouth: I'm A Believer (6 Comments | Comment on this)

<< Previous Day

2008/05/01 [Calendar]

Next Day >>