To no real surprise, it came out last week the secret service has already been investigating an increased number of threats against the new President-elect. Already two "plots" have been broken up, although they apparently amounted to a lot of ranting and hot air rather than anything serious.
Which isn't to say racists with guns doing a lot of ranting and raving isn't threatening in and of itself.
Also to no surprise, the Secret Service announced there was a noticeable spike in threats at the time Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin was traveling the country spewing bile trying to draw a false image of Obama "pallin' around" with terrorists. Anyone who thinks Palin wasn't purposefully trying to stir up violent reactions is kidding themselves. Of course, if anything disasterous had acctually occurred to Obama or his family, she'd have claimed to as distraught as anyone at her words being "misconstrued".
No, I don't think Palin was hoping Obama would be shot ... but I do think she was aware of what her words might spawn, and simply didn't care. If winning the election meant increasing the likelihood of some nutcase killing her opponent, well ... that was a risk she was willing for him to take.
Showing posts with label 2008 Races. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2008 Races. Show all posts
Monday, November 17, 2008
Monday, September 1, 2008
Who says Zimbabwe is a 3rd world nation
Reading the news this morning, I ran across this story on the reprehensible state of health care in Zimbabwe, where medicine is unavailable and the system is in such general collapse, the best advice local doctors could give was "don't get sick".
Of course, given a 2005 Harvard study found nearly half of all bankruptcies in the US have been triggered by health crises, even among the insured, that same advice could be given to our citizens as well.
Further, as the DNC recently helpfully pointed out, McCain has been among those consistently voting to make it more difficult to claim bankruptcy protection. I suppose if you are among those who lose count of how many houses your family owns, a major medical bill isn't such a concern.
Of course, given a 2005 Harvard study found nearly half of all bankruptcies in the US have been triggered by health crises, even among the insured, that same advice could be given to our citizens as well.
Further, as the DNC recently helpfully pointed out, McCain has been among those consistently voting to make it more difficult to claim bankruptcy protection. I suppose if you are among those who lose count of how many houses your family owns, a major medical bill isn't such a concern.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Safety first
After being so disgusted at the way our Democratic Representatives and Senators rolled over for Telecom companies, I decided to take some time off. After a lengthy break, with Obama's veep announcement today and the national conventions fast approaching, it seemed like a good time to step back up to the plate.
Various news sources are reporting Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware will run on the ticket with Obama. Of the "safe" options, I think he's the best choice. He brings a sense of experience and gravitas to the position, and while Deleware is likely to vote Democrat no matter who the VP is, Biden's long-time service on the Foreign Relations committee and general recognition for his knowledge of foreign policy matters definitely helps shore up a perceived Obama weakness.
I can understand why, being the first major party Presidential nominee of non-white male extraction, Obama might feel he is already sufficiently challenging to the societal norms. Still, I would have liked to have seen Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius on the ticket. While she wouldn't help on foreign policy matters, she would shore up different areas, such as bringing actual governing experience to the slate, as well as possibly helping among women voters. She would also provide a decent chance of carrying Kansas, which in a close race could make all the difference.
If you are looking to make history, go big ... historical barriers are not often broken by those choosing to "play it safe".
Various news sources are reporting Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware will run on the ticket with Obama. Of the "safe" options, I think he's the best choice. He brings a sense of experience and gravitas to the position, and while Deleware is likely to vote Democrat no matter who the VP is, Biden's long-time service on the Foreign Relations committee and general recognition for his knowledge of foreign policy matters definitely helps shore up a perceived Obama weakness.
I can understand why, being the first major party Presidential nominee of non-white male extraction, Obama might feel he is already sufficiently challenging to the societal norms. Still, I would have liked to have seen Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius on the ticket. While she wouldn't help on foreign policy matters, she would shore up different areas, such as bringing actual governing experience to the slate, as well as possibly helping among women voters. She would also provide a decent chance of carrying Kansas, which in a close race could make all the difference.
If you are looking to make history, go big ... historical barriers are not often broken by those choosing to "play it safe".
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Unmentioned history
Barack Obama has clinched the Democratic nomination, and the NY Times is reporting Hillary Clinton will officially throw her support behind him this Friday. A black man as the Presidential nominee of a major U.S. Political party is unquestionably an historically significant event, and there has been much ink spilled and syllables uttered discussing the importance of his victory.
Even internationally this seems to be the case ... while listening to an international call-in show on NPR people from all over the world were commenting on how closely people in Africa, the Caribbean, Europe, wherever had been following the race, and how significant Obama's victory was.
All of which is true ...
Had Clinton won the nomination it would have been nearly as historic. I say "nearly" because we have already seen women as the leaders of other major Western powers, Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel coming immediately to mind. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any black man who has held a similar position among the generally considered major states.
... but ...
As important as Obama's victory might be in a historical sense, what is more import in my mind is the lack of race as a major issue of either his campaign or his opponent's.
That's not to say race was completely excluded. Obviously it came up a different times during the campaign. Equally obviously some number of people voted for Obama because he is black, and some number voted against him for the same reason. How many voted each way we will never know.
However, at no point in during the campaign was race ever a singular, major issue. Health care was ... Iraq policy ... Experience vs. change ... any number of other topics ... but Obama did not ultimately win (or lose) the race because of his skin color, just as Clinton did not either win (or lose) the race because of her gender. The vast majority of voters, those who voted for him and those who voted against didn't see Obama as black, or colored, or a man of color, or even a man.
They saw him as a candidate ... one with positions they liked or didn't, but a candidate rather than a black candidate. Enough saw him as the best candidate he now has the opportunity to be president. He won based on his positions, his eloquence, his ability to convince voters to support him.
Which is how it should be, of course... but I confess I am surprised I lived to see the day.
Even internationally this seems to be the case ... while listening to an international call-in show on NPR people from all over the world were commenting on how closely people in Africa, the Caribbean, Europe, wherever had been following the race, and how significant Obama's victory was.
All of which is true ...
Had Clinton won the nomination it would have been nearly as historic. I say "nearly" because we have already seen women as the leaders of other major Western powers, Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel coming immediately to mind. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any black man who has held a similar position among the generally considered major states.
... but ...
As important as Obama's victory might be in a historical sense, what is more import in my mind is the lack of race as a major issue of either his campaign or his opponent's.
That's not to say race was completely excluded. Obviously it came up a different times during the campaign. Equally obviously some number of people voted for Obama because he is black, and some number voted against him for the same reason. How many voted each way we will never know.
However, at no point in during the campaign was race ever a singular, major issue. Health care was ... Iraq policy ... Experience vs. change ... any number of other topics ... but Obama did not ultimately win (or lose) the race because of his skin color, just as Clinton did not either win (or lose) the race because of her gender. The vast majority of voters, those who voted for him and those who voted against didn't see Obama as black, or colored, or a man of color, or even a man.
They saw him as a candidate ... one with positions they liked or didn't, but a candidate rather than a black candidate. Enough saw him as the best candidate he now has the opportunity to be president. He won based on his positions, his eloquence, his ability to convince voters to support him.
Which is how it should be, of course... but I confess I am surprised I lived to see the day.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Sympathy for some, not for others
So Clinton staff and supporters are, not surprisingly, complaining about the decision on how to seat delegates from Michigan and Florida ... and I guess that's their job, since the decision essentially removes any last hopes Clinton had to win the Democratic nomination. Until Clinton actually concedes, her staff and supporters should be pressing hard for anything that might advance the cause of their candidate, as long as it doesn't reflect negatively on her opponent.
Regarding the states themselves, I have some sympathy for Florida's plight. It's my understanding Republicans in the state were the major force behind moving the primary date up, and that while numerous Democrats did vote in favor of moving the date, even had they voted against it wouldn't have made a difference. By state law, all candidates had their names on the ballot, and while I do believe the final gap in the state would have been considerably narrow had the candidates actively campaigned there (Clinton finished with 50%, Obama with 33%), at least the case could be made it was a level playing field - no one campaigned, and all names were on the ballot.
Michigan is a different matter ... the Democratic governor and legislature pushed for the early date, in contravention of clear party rules, rules they were informed would be enforced prior to their ever moving the date. They moved the date anyway, then are shocked ... shocked ... that the consequences they were told would ensue were actually applied.
If the voters and delegates of Michigan are upset about this (and they should be) then the proper direction to express their ire is toward Governor Granholm and the state officials who voted to change the date even after they were told any delegates would not be seated.
Trying to claim all the Michigan delegates should be seated, with the results standing as they were, a position pushed by various Clinton staffers and supporters, is not just laughable, but derisively laughable. If anyone actually made that case in front of me, I would consider them not even worth listening to. They wouldn't even be wrong. Obama and Edwards did the "right" thing by having their names taken off the ballot (something Florida law prevented) while Clinton chose to leave her name on. To think being the only real option on the ballot other than "Uncommitted" didn't have a major effect on the tally is ridiculous. To further claim Clinton should get the 54% of delegates she won while Obama should get none (since his name wasn't on the ballot) is ridiculous.
The last primaries are Tuesday. Once those are done, there will be serious pressure placed on any unpledged superdelegate (including Arizona's CD8 rep) to pick a side and announce it by the end of the week, or start of next week at the earliest ... at which point in time everyone needs to pull together and focus on McCain. Even if Dems win more seats in the House and Senate (which looks likely), it will be hard to achieve much on Iraq, spying on citizens, torture, bad health care policy or anything else Republicans favor and Democrats oppose while a Republian wields the veto stamp.
Regarding the states themselves, I have some sympathy for Florida's plight. It's my understanding Republicans in the state were the major force behind moving the primary date up, and that while numerous Democrats did vote in favor of moving the date, even had they voted against it wouldn't have made a difference. By state law, all candidates had their names on the ballot, and while I do believe the final gap in the state would have been considerably narrow had the candidates actively campaigned there (Clinton finished with 50%, Obama with 33%), at least the case could be made it was a level playing field - no one campaigned, and all names were on the ballot.
Michigan is a different matter ... the Democratic governor and legislature pushed for the early date, in contravention of clear party rules, rules they were informed would be enforced prior to their ever moving the date. They moved the date anyway, then are shocked ... shocked ... that the consequences they were told would ensue were actually applied.
If the voters and delegates of Michigan are upset about this (and they should be) then the proper direction to express their ire is toward Governor Granholm and the state officials who voted to change the date even after they were told any delegates would not be seated.
Trying to claim all the Michigan delegates should be seated, with the results standing as they were, a position pushed by various Clinton staffers and supporters, is not just laughable, but derisively laughable. If anyone actually made that case in front of me, I would consider them not even worth listening to. They wouldn't even be wrong. Obama and Edwards did the "right" thing by having their names taken off the ballot (something Florida law prevented) while Clinton chose to leave her name on. To think being the only real option on the ballot other than "Uncommitted" didn't have a major effect on the tally is ridiculous. To further claim Clinton should get the 54% of delegates she won while Obama should get none (since his name wasn't on the ballot) is ridiculous.
The last primaries are Tuesday. Once those are done, there will be serious pressure placed on any unpledged superdelegate (including Arizona's CD8 rep) to pick a side and announce it by the end of the week, or start of next week at the earliest ... at which point in time everyone needs to pull together and focus on McCain. Even if Dems win more seats in the House and Senate (which looks likely), it will be hard to achieve much on Iraq, spying on citizens, torture, bad health care policy or anything else Republicans favor and Democrats oppose while a Republian wields the veto stamp.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
End game
For the last month or six weeks Obama has been playing a winning Rook-and-pawn end game against Clinton, and while his technique hasn't been flawless, it has been sufficient to steadily grind towards the win, despite stiff, solid defense from his opponent.
With the results from Oregon and Kentucky, and counting pledge super-delegates, Obama crept past the majority needed to claim the race, assuming no last minute surprises vis-a-vis Florida and Michigan, or a wave of super-delegates switching back to Clinton. It's not all over until the opponent resigns, but the final stage of the game is clearly at hand now.
This has brought out a spate of articles I have read in a number of places recently about the bitterness Clinton supporters feel about the result, and how many are considering not voting at all, or even voting for McCain in the general election ... to which I have just one comment.
Get over it.
First, lets be fair to Clinton herself, who has consistently urger her backers to support Obama should he win the nomination (Obama has done the same in reverse). No, this is a matter of supporters, the vast majority female, who are expressing their disappointment at how the country "wasn't ready" for a female candidate, and how "betrayed" they feel by women who somehow had the temerity to think someone might not be the best candidate just because they were of the same gender.
I don't dispute Clinton had some extra hurdles to clear by dint of her sex, but it's not like being black wasn't a drawback in some areas for Obama (take a gander at the voting patterns in West Virginia and Kentucky, for example).
I found particularly amusing the hypocrisy of the woman who spoke about people not realizing how damaging it was when Obama portrayed Clinton as representative of "the old way of politics", how that created bitterness in strong Clinton supporters, and in the same breath noted she was unlikely to vote for Obama because the White House "wasn't a place to learn on the job". Surely no Obama supporter could take those words to be derisive.
As someone noted in one of the articles, the end of a long, hard-fought race is not the time to gather the most accurate polling date. People are understandably disappointed at seeing all their efforts and hopes come to an end, Clinton more so than anyone ... I still expect, in the end, most of these folks will come to terms with matters and realize another four years of Bush policies will do nothing to help this country, and end up voting for Obama, even if they don't do so enthusiastically.
However, it does point out the importance of wrapping this up once the final primaries are done in June, and not waiting for the convention to finalize matters. Get the super-delegates committed in June, and there is enough time for the mourning/healing process to run it's course. Wait until September, and their may not be.
With the results from Oregon and Kentucky, and counting pledge super-delegates, Obama crept past the majority needed to claim the race, assuming no last minute surprises vis-a-vis Florida and Michigan, or a wave of super-delegates switching back to Clinton. It's not all over until the opponent resigns, but the final stage of the game is clearly at hand now.
This has brought out a spate of articles I have read in a number of places recently about the bitterness Clinton supporters feel about the result, and how many are considering not voting at all, or even voting for McCain in the general election ... to which I have just one comment.
Get over it.
First, lets be fair to Clinton herself, who has consistently urger her backers to support Obama should he win the nomination (Obama has done the same in reverse). No, this is a matter of supporters, the vast majority female, who are expressing their disappointment at how the country "wasn't ready" for a female candidate, and how "betrayed" they feel by women who somehow had the temerity to think someone might not be the best candidate just because they were of the same gender.
I don't dispute Clinton had some extra hurdles to clear by dint of her sex, but it's not like being black wasn't a drawback in some areas for Obama (take a gander at the voting patterns in West Virginia and Kentucky, for example).
I found particularly amusing the hypocrisy of the woman who spoke about people not realizing how damaging it was when Obama portrayed Clinton as representative of "the old way of politics", how that created bitterness in strong Clinton supporters, and in the same breath noted she was unlikely to vote for Obama because the White House "wasn't a place to learn on the job". Surely no Obama supporter could take those words to be derisive.
As someone noted in one of the articles, the end of a long, hard-fought race is not the time to gather the most accurate polling date. People are understandably disappointed at seeing all their efforts and hopes come to an end, Clinton more so than anyone ... I still expect, in the end, most of these folks will come to terms with matters and realize another four years of Bush policies will do nothing to help this country, and end up voting for Obama, even if they don't do so enthusiastically.
However, it does point out the importance of wrapping this up once the final primaries are done in June, and not waiting for the convention to finalize matters. Get the super-delegates committed in June, and there is enough time for the mourning/healing process to run it's course. Wait until September, and their may not be.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Al-Qaeda's favored candidate
John McCain has recently taken to referring to Barack Obama as Hamas' favorite candidate, apparently because Obama has advocating dialog with Hamas leadership to try to further finding a solution to the Israel-Palestine problem. Our glorious President joined in yesterday, equating Obama to Neville Chamberlain attempting to appease Hitler.
Hamas is certainly an unsavory organization, but like it or not it also has a political aspect, and is the party duly and freely elected to head the Palestinian government ... and currently does so in the Gaza Strip. As such, it behooves us to engage them - no peace is likely to be found in the region if we refuse to do so. Even McCain himself recognizes this ... or, at least, he did two years ago:
"They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."
That's some pretty bent-talking there, slamming someone for holding the exact same view you have previously expressed ... of course, that was before McCain become the Republican candidate for President and had to sacrifice his actual beliefs to the party extremists.
McCain was right the first time ... only a moron (and our President certainly qualifies on this count) would speak in absolutes about such matters, and fail to recognize the infinite shades of gray in between. Not surprisingly, Eggplant has drawn the wrong lesson from Chamberlain's errors. The mistake was NOT in opening discussion with Hitler's government, but rather in agreeing to Germany's forceful annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia in exchange for "Peace for our time" ... a time which lasted less than 12 months.
Talking to someone or some organization is NOT the same as "giving them everything they want".
Meanwhile numerous studies and stories (here, here and here for just a few examples) have noted how the US presence in Iraq has helped al-Qaeda garner new recruits (although this appears more difficult now in past years). Bent-talk express himself has voiced his support for being in Iraq 100 years if necessary ... which certainly seems like it would make him al-Qaeda's favored candidate.
Hamas is certainly an unsavory organization, but like it or not it also has a political aspect, and is the party duly and freely elected to head the Palestinian government ... and currently does so in the Gaza Strip. As such, it behooves us to engage them - no peace is likely to be found in the region if we refuse to do so. Even McCain himself recognizes this ... or, at least, he did two years ago:
"They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."
That's some pretty bent-talking there, slamming someone for holding the exact same view you have previously expressed ... of course, that was before McCain become the Republican candidate for President and had to sacrifice his actual beliefs to the party extremists.
McCain was right the first time ... only a moron (and our President certainly qualifies on this count) would speak in absolutes about such matters, and fail to recognize the infinite shades of gray in between. Not surprisingly, Eggplant has drawn the wrong lesson from Chamberlain's errors. The mistake was NOT in opening discussion with Hitler's government, but rather in agreeing to Germany's forceful annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia in exchange for "Peace for our time" ... a time which lasted less than 12 months.
Talking to someone or some organization is NOT the same as "giving them everything they want".
Meanwhile numerous studies and stories (here, here and here for just a few examples) have noted how the US presence in Iraq has helped al-Qaeda garner new recruits (although this appears more difficult now in past years). Bent-talk express himself has voiced his support for being in Iraq 100 years if necessary ... which certainly seems like it would make him al-Qaeda's favored candidate.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Carville symbolizes Clinton attitude
This past week former Democratic presidential candidate and current New Mexico governor Bill Richardson gave his endorsement to Barack Obama in the nomination battle. As has become apparent, this does not sit well with Clinton supporters.
Given Richardson server as both UN ambassador and Secretary of Energy under former President Clinton, some amount of strain can at his announcement is to be expected. Richardson described his discussion with Hillary when he let her know of his plans as cordial, but heated. One Clinton staffer noted that Richardson's announcement came too late to make a difference, presumably alluding to the fact that states with significant Hispanic voting populations such as Texas (Richardson is the nation's only Hispanic governor) had already had their primaries. Snide, yes, but of course the Clinton campaign has an interest in playing down the announcement.
The reaction of Clinton adviser James Carville is a different matter.
The New York Times reported Carville described the act as "An act of betrayal", and went on to say "Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic."
Just how much does Carville think Richardson was paid for his endorsement? On exactly what grounds does Carville consider Richardson to be a disciple of Hillary? When, exactly, is she scheduled for her cross-fitting? Inquiring minds want to know.
No, the reaction of of the Clinton campaign is the reaction of someone who feels they were "owed" something and didn't get it, sulking 10-year-olds denied a much-desired toy or a sleepover outing with a friend. The truth is Richardson owed neither campaign anything other than his sincere opinion ... and the fact the decision was clearly a difficult and painful one for him simply points out how heartfelt his choice is.
The reaction of the Clinton camp, and Carville in particular, points out why it's the right one.
Given Richardson server as both UN ambassador and Secretary of Energy under former President Clinton, some amount of strain can at his announcement is to be expected. Richardson described his discussion with Hillary when he let her know of his plans as cordial, but heated. One Clinton staffer noted that Richardson's announcement came too late to make a difference, presumably alluding to the fact that states with significant Hispanic voting populations such as Texas (Richardson is the nation's only Hispanic governor) had already had their primaries. Snide, yes, but of course the Clinton campaign has an interest in playing down the announcement.
The reaction of Clinton adviser James Carville is a different matter.
The New York Times reported Carville described the act as "An act of betrayal", and went on to say "Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic."
Just how much does Carville think Richardson was paid for his endorsement? On exactly what grounds does Carville consider Richardson to be a disciple of Hillary? When, exactly, is she scheduled for her cross-fitting? Inquiring minds want to know.
No, the reaction of of the Clinton campaign is the reaction of someone who feels they were "owed" something and didn't get it, sulking 10-year-olds denied a much-desired toy or a sleepover outing with a friend. The truth is Richardson owed neither campaign anything other than his sincere opinion ... and the fact the decision was clearly a difficult and painful one for him simply points out how heartfelt his choice is.
The reaction of the Clinton camp, and Carville in particular, points out why it's the right one.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
All quiet on the (South)Western front
A little over two years ago I was drawn into the blogging milieu by the race for Arizona's 8th district, an affair made interesting by the retirement of the incumbent. The Democratic side soon coalesced into a hotly-contested three-way primary in which the Giffords organization machine managed to overrun former former TV personality Patty Weiss and military hero Jeff Latas (who was the only one of the three to declare before Kolbe announced he was stepping down).
As hotly contested as the Democratic primary was, it never approached the bitterness of the Republican primary, which eventually saw border hardliner Randy Graf win the nomination despite opposition from Kolbe and the local GOP money men. That bitterness certainly helped ease the way to Giffords' victory in the fall.
All-in-all, though, with two hotly contested primaries, followed by an anticipated general election, the local blogs were continuously abuzz with posts and comments, some thoughtful and insightful, many ... not so much. Good times .... good times.
This time around it's very different. With an incumbent now in place there was never going to be a serious primary on the Democratic side, while the Republican's twisted whatever arms were necessary to clear the path for challenger Tim Bee. With neither primary contested, there is a notable lack of discussion about the race. It seems all parties seem content to keep their guns loaded until mid-summer arrives. While the 2006 race felt like a marathon, this year's is shaping up to be a sprint.
In some ways that may make the fireworks, when they arrive, that much larger and louder ... there will be a lot of pent-up energy to be released and a lot less time to release it in ... but it sure does make things quiet now.
As hotly contested as the Democratic primary was, it never approached the bitterness of the Republican primary, which eventually saw border hardliner Randy Graf win the nomination despite opposition from Kolbe and the local GOP money men. That bitterness certainly helped ease the way to Giffords' victory in the fall.
All-in-all, though, with two hotly contested primaries, followed by an anticipated general election, the local blogs were continuously abuzz with posts and comments, some thoughtful and insightful, many ... not so much. Good times .... good times.
This time around it's very different. With an incumbent now in place there was never going to be a serious primary on the Democratic side, while the Republican's twisted whatever arms were necessary to clear the path for challenger Tim Bee. With neither primary contested, there is a notable lack of discussion about the race. It seems all parties seem content to keep their guns loaded until mid-summer arrives. While the 2006 race felt like a marathon, this year's is shaping up to be a sprint.
In some ways that may make the fireworks, when they arrive, that much larger and louder ... there will be a lot of pent-up energy to be released and a lot less time to release it in ... but it sure does make things quiet now.
Friday, March 7, 2008
I feel prescient
The New York Times has a piece this morning about discussions among Democrat movers and shakers about some kind of "do-over" for the Michigan and Florida primaries.
I'm feeling mildly prescient, since I mentioned this about three weeks ago. I even calculated the estimated costs correctly (well, close enough ... I said $30 million, the article says $28 million). I'm sure others had the idea before me ... but I'm still gonna take credit, gosh-darn-it. Nice to know leading Democrats are stealing my ideas.
Here's where we differ, however:
So let's get this straight. The two state parties, knowingly and willfully, violated clearly defined rules in setting their original primary dates. They were told if they did so, their delegates would not be counted at the national convention.
It's not like any of this happened in secret. The rules were set, they broke them, and they are being held accountable. Yet the state organizations seem shocked - SHOCKED! - those rules were actually enforced.
I'm completely ok with the state taxpayers not paying more for a new set of elections. The state parties, not so much. The problem was created by those state parties. Their decisions are the reason their state delegates are not being counted. To try to avoid all responsibility and pass the bill along to the national committee or some other group is pathetic.
If the state parties want to be represented, they need to step up, admit they made a mistake, and help make up for the repercussions of their decisions - including foot all, or at least a big chunk of, the costs of a new set of primaries.
I'm feeling mildly prescient, since I mentioned this about three weeks ago. I even calculated the estimated costs correctly (well, close enough ... I said $30 million, the article says $28 million). I'm sure others had the idea before me ... but I'm still gonna take credit, gosh-darn-it. Nice to know leading Democrats are stealing my ideas.
Here's where we differ, however:
Ms. Granholm (the governor of Michigan - Sirocco), a Clinton supporter, said Thursday that there would be a noisy protest at the Democratic convention if the Michigan delegation was not seated. But she left open the possibility of a new Democratic primary, as long as the taxpayers or the state party do not have to foot the bill.
...
In Florida, Senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat who supports Mrs. Clinton, and the state party chairwoman, Karen Thurman, who is neutral, said the national party or some other source should pay for any do-over.
So let's get this straight. The two state parties, knowingly and willfully, violated clearly defined rules in setting their original primary dates. They were told if they did so, their delegates would not be counted at the national convention.
It's not like any of this happened in secret. The rules were set, they broke them, and they are being held accountable. Yet the state organizations seem shocked - SHOCKED! - those rules were actually enforced.
I'm completely ok with the state taxpayers not paying more for a new set of elections. The state parties, not so much. The problem was created by those state parties. Their decisions are the reason their state delegates are not being counted. To try to avoid all responsibility and pass the bill along to the national committee or some other group is pathetic.
If the state parties want to be represented, they need to step up, admit they made a mistake, and help make up for the repercussions of their decisions - including foot all, or at least a big chunk of, the costs of a new set of primaries.
Monday, March 3, 2008
It's her decision
Much as I hope Obama sweeps the primaries tomorrow (unlikely) and Clinton opts to withdraw shortly after (even less likely), don't count me among those "encouraging" her to do so.
One of the things I have always found tacky in sports in when fans or, worse, sportswriters/broadcasters insist on opining athlete X needs to retire because he's getting old, skills are slipping, we want to remember him (or her) in their prime, etc. Ultimately only the player and the teams get to make the decision on that, and they should be left to make that decision on their own. After all, you don't hear them opining about how columnist so-and-so has been getting trite the last few years, and needs to retire his byline.
I feel much the same way about those calling for Hillary Clinton to step out of the race, which has been coming in increasing volume and pressure from Obama supporters. While there may be good reasons to favor it (let's stop fighting each other and start fighting McCain), it still strikes me as self-serving and slightly distasteful.
Clinton remains a viable candidate who, while an underdog, still can seriously hope to win election. Despite a hiccup in late-January, early February she has plenty of money for continued campaigning.
Moreover, this opportunity likely represents her one-and-only shot to gain the Presidency, clearly something she has been working hard to achieve and laying the groundwork for not just the last 15+ months, but the last 15 years. She turns 61 this year. Should Obama win the primary and the general, she's looking at 69 before she seriously runs again. Even if McCain were to win, she's looking at 65 - young by McCain's standards, but not anyone else's ... and that's assuming she gets through the primary four years from now after losing in this one.
No, it's her dream, and it's a dream she's had a long, long time. It's hard to lay down a dream, especially when there remains a reasonable chance of that dream still being attainable. Only she should decide when (or if) she's willing to let that dream go any sooner than she is forced to.
One of the things I have always found tacky in sports in when fans or, worse, sportswriters/broadcasters insist on opining athlete X needs to retire because he's getting old, skills are slipping, we want to remember him (or her) in their prime, etc. Ultimately only the player and the teams get to make the decision on that, and they should be left to make that decision on their own. After all, you don't hear them opining about how columnist so-and-so has been getting trite the last few years, and needs to retire his byline.
I feel much the same way about those calling for Hillary Clinton to step out of the race, which has been coming in increasing volume and pressure from Obama supporters. While there may be good reasons to favor it (let's stop fighting each other and start fighting McCain), it still strikes me as self-serving and slightly distasteful.
Clinton remains a viable candidate who, while an underdog, still can seriously hope to win election. Despite a hiccup in late-January, early February she has plenty of money for continued campaigning.
Moreover, this opportunity likely represents her one-and-only shot to gain the Presidency, clearly something she has been working hard to achieve and laying the groundwork for not just the last 15+ months, but the last 15 years. She turns 61 this year. Should Obama win the primary and the general, she's looking at 69 before she seriously runs again. Even if McCain were to win, she's looking at 65 - young by McCain's standards, but not anyone else's ... and that's assuming she gets through the primary four years from now after losing in this one.
No, it's her dream, and it's a dream she's had a long, long time. It's hard to lay down a dream, especially when there remains a reasonable chance of that dream still being attainable. Only she should decide when (or if) she's willing to let that dream go any sooner than she is forced to.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Wisconsin winnings
So Obama continued his February roll with a decisive win in Wisconsin last night (Hawaii too, but Wisconsin was the focus). Clinton responded with a notably ungracious non-concession speech, which the Obama campaign let go for about 15 or 20 minutes before deciding if she wasn't going to be generous neither were they and had Obama start his speech, effectively knocking Clinton off the air.
Yes, folks are getting a bit testy out there now ...
Obama's 17-point margin was about double what was expected based on polling data, and the results showed Obama seriously cutting into or even winning demographics which have been seen as Clinton strongholds:
* He beat Clinton among women, 51-49.
* He beat Clinton among voters with familiy income less than $50 K, 51-49.
* He lost among Catholics, but only by two points, 49-51.
Clinton did retain a big margin in one of her key demographics, winning the vote among those 65 and older 60-39. The race this fall is not going to be decided by voters 65 and older.
I think the Wisconsin result is a precursor of things to come. The state, in many ways, set up for Hillary - it's predominantly white, working class, a stronger union state than most, more conservative than many states that vote Democratic. It's worth recalling the last two presidential elections, the margins were very close ... and it definitely seems like, from the results, the state is declaring whom they would like to see if Dems want to win comfortably there, especially when you realize about 25% of the primary voters were Independents - yet another category Obama smashed Clinton in.
Meanwhile, Obama is crushing the opposition on the money front too, apparently having raised $36 million in January to Clinton's $13.5 million and McCain's $12 million according to the NYTimes.
I tuned in to some post-primary TV analysis for about 20 minutes last night, just long enough to listen to Chris Matthews try to push some panelists to declare the race over. No one was going that far, but with Texas showing as a dead heat it seemed clear some were starting to lean that way. John McCain seems to be in that camp as well, as his victory speech apparently saw him start hammering Obama and omit mention of Clinton.
I'm not willing to go that far yet ... but I'm hoping.
Yes, folks are getting a bit testy out there now ...
Obama's 17-point margin was about double what was expected based on polling data, and the results showed Obama seriously cutting into or even winning demographics which have been seen as Clinton strongholds:
* He beat Clinton among women, 51-49.
* He beat Clinton among voters with familiy income less than $50 K, 51-49.
* He lost among Catholics, but only by two points, 49-51.
Clinton did retain a big margin in one of her key demographics, winning the vote among those 65 and older 60-39. The race this fall is not going to be decided by voters 65 and older.
I think the Wisconsin result is a precursor of things to come. The state, in many ways, set up for Hillary - it's predominantly white, working class, a stronger union state than most, more conservative than many states that vote Democratic. It's worth recalling the last two presidential elections, the margins were very close ... and it definitely seems like, from the results, the state is declaring whom they would like to see if Dems want to win comfortably there, especially when you realize about 25% of the primary voters were Independents - yet another category Obama smashed Clinton in.
Meanwhile, Obama is crushing the opposition on the money front too, apparently having raised $36 million in January to Clinton's $13.5 million and McCain's $12 million according to the NYTimes.
I tuned in to some post-primary TV analysis for about 20 minutes last night, just long enough to listen to Chris Matthews try to push some panelists to declare the race over. No one was going that far, but with Texas showing as a dead heat it seemed clear some were starting to lean that way. John McCain seems to be in that camp as well, as his victory speech apparently saw him start hammering Obama and omit mention of Clinton.
I'm not willing to go that far yet ... but I'm hoping.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Do it again
There's a lot of discussion in the Democratic camp about what to do with the Michigan and Florida delegates. Clinton and her supporters, unsurprisingly, are arguing they should be seated. Obama supporters point out the DNC rules were violated, both states were told their delegates would not count, and they opted to move their primary dates up anyway ... why reward bad behavior.
Clinton got most of the delegates in both states, and given the constraints one can see why - with no one campaigning in either state name recognition was always going to be the deciding factor, and given how early both primaries were held (which is what led to this issue in the first place) her name recognition was still far higher than Obama's. Further, her name was the only one of the leading candidates to appear on the ballot in Michigan. Of course she won, and of course she now wants those delegates, since without them she's likely to lose.
On the other hand, there is a point that the will of the voters in those states should count too ... after all, it's not the voters who decided to move the dates up. Furthermore, with the Obama camp arguing that super delegates should adhere to the will of the majority of general primary voters, it would be inconsistent to not include the will of those who voted in these two populous states.
Sooooo ... let's have a do-over.
There's time. The Democratic National Convention is not until late August. There is plenty of time to pick a date in, say, late July for both states and schedule primaries for them, primaries which would count. Heck, given the state of the race the two primaries would probably be more influential for being held late in the season rather than early. There would be plenty of time for both campaigns to gear up advertising and re-create whatever ground operations they need there.
No, time isn't an issue. Money is the issue. My guess is it would cost something on the order of $30 million to hold new primaries in both states. So, ask both campaigns to kick in $5 million (or, perhaps, since Obama has more money available at this point, maybe $6.5 million from him, 3.5 million from Clinton), have the DNC contribute $5 million, and the states foot the rest.
If the states aren't willing, then say to hell with them - they knew the penalties, and their votes don't count.
Clinton got most of the delegates in both states, and given the constraints one can see why - with no one campaigning in either state name recognition was always going to be the deciding factor, and given how early both primaries were held (which is what led to this issue in the first place) her name recognition was still far higher than Obama's. Further, her name was the only one of the leading candidates to appear on the ballot in Michigan. Of course she won, and of course she now wants those delegates, since without them she's likely to lose.
On the other hand, there is a point that the will of the voters in those states should count too ... after all, it's not the voters who decided to move the dates up. Furthermore, with the Obama camp arguing that super delegates should adhere to the will of the majority of general primary voters, it would be inconsistent to not include the will of those who voted in these two populous states.
Sooooo ... let's have a do-over.
There's time. The Democratic National Convention is not until late August. There is plenty of time to pick a date in, say, late July for both states and schedule primaries for them, primaries which would count. Heck, given the state of the race the two primaries would probably be more influential for being held late in the season rather than early. There would be plenty of time for both campaigns to gear up advertising and re-create whatever ground operations they need there.
No, time isn't an issue. Money is the issue. My guess is it would cost something on the order of $30 million to hold new primaries in both states. So, ask both campaigns to kick in $5 million (or, perhaps, since Obama has more money available at this point, maybe $6.5 million from him, 3.5 million from Clinton), have the DNC contribute $5 million, and the states foot the rest.
If the states aren't willing, then say to hell with them - they knew the penalties, and their votes don't count.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Omentum and other things
Obama continued to roll last night, sweeping three more primaries and taking the delegate lead for the first time over Clinton.
Recent reports in various papers report a Clinton campaign team in increasing turmoil. She replaced her campaign manager two days ago, and the deputy campaign manager resigned yesterday. The Clintons have loaned $5 million of their personal funds to the campaign as Obama continues to pull ahead in the fund raising race at a record clip. Even previously "committed" superdelegates are talking off-the-record of switching their allegiances.
The Clinton campaign seems to be bunkering in with a Rudy Giuliani approach - hoping to take the large state primaries of Texas and Ohio on March 4 to stop the Obama march, which by then is expected to have garnered a full month of uninterrupted victories. Even Clinton campaign staffers are admitting if she doesn't win both, her campaign is likely doomed. We saw how well this approach worked for Rudy9/11.
I have seen some Clinton campaign remarks trying to downplay the effect of the recent String of Obama wins, pointing out how his win in Iowa didn't carry over to New Hampshire, but the circumstances are entirely different. First of all, the win in Virginia last night was especially indicative, as Obama swept every voting demographic, showing strength with constituents outside his "base". Clinton has yet to show anything similar in any primary.
Second, going into New Hampshire only one state had been settled, and there was only one week in between. Going into March 4 Clinton will be facing a full month of losing primaries, along with the associated "Obama on a roll" stories. Unlike in New Hampshire, Obama can be expected now to significantly outspend Clinton on advertising in both of the big states. The Obama wave after Iowa was a small swell. The Obama wave going into next month won't be a tsunami, but it will be a nice 40-footer, and much harder for Clinton to break.
In other news ... the US Senate yesterday decided sure, we're fine with expanding the wiretapping of US citizens, even though we already have the FISA act which allows federal agencies to conduct wiretapping without a warrant if time is of essence, and get the warrant retroactively. Just as an added bonus, they decided to throw in retroactive immunity for all the communications companies which violated the law by allowing the government to tap their systems without warrants.
The House did pass a bill without the immunity clause, and the two bills still need to be reconciled. One hopes the immunity clause dies there, but one shouldn't be holding one's breath.
Finally, the government presented a tortured legal justification for waterboarding yesterday. I'm not sure how to feel about this ... certainly, I don't find the justification at all convincing, but on the other hand if it might one day allow me to legally justify waterboarding the Senators who voted in favor of the wiretapping immunity legislation (particularly the Democratic ones) I could be persuaded to see the usefulness of the technique.
Recent reports in various papers report a Clinton campaign team in increasing turmoil. She replaced her campaign manager two days ago, and the deputy campaign manager resigned yesterday. The Clintons have loaned $5 million of their personal funds to the campaign as Obama continues to pull ahead in the fund raising race at a record clip. Even previously "committed" superdelegates are talking off-the-record of switching their allegiances.
The Clinton campaign seems to be bunkering in with a Rudy Giuliani approach - hoping to take the large state primaries of Texas and Ohio on March 4 to stop the Obama march, which by then is expected to have garnered a full month of uninterrupted victories. Even Clinton campaign staffers are admitting if she doesn't win both, her campaign is likely doomed. We saw how well this approach worked for Rudy9/11.
I have seen some Clinton campaign remarks trying to downplay the effect of the recent String of Obama wins, pointing out how his win in Iowa didn't carry over to New Hampshire, but the circumstances are entirely different. First of all, the win in Virginia last night was especially indicative, as Obama swept every voting demographic, showing strength with constituents outside his "base". Clinton has yet to show anything similar in any primary.
Second, going into New Hampshire only one state had been settled, and there was only one week in between. Going into March 4 Clinton will be facing a full month of losing primaries, along with the associated "Obama on a roll" stories. Unlike in New Hampshire, Obama can be expected now to significantly outspend Clinton on advertising in both of the big states. The Obama wave after Iowa was a small swell. The Obama wave going into next month won't be a tsunami, but it will be a nice 40-footer, and much harder for Clinton to break.
In other news ... the US Senate yesterday decided sure, we're fine with expanding the wiretapping of US citizens, even though we already have the FISA act which allows federal agencies to conduct wiretapping without a warrant if time is of essence, and get the warrant retroactively. Just as an added bonus, they decided to throw in retroactive immunity for all the communications companies which violated the law by allowing the government to tap their systems without warrants.
The House did pass a bill without the immunity clause, and the two bills still need to be reconciled. One hopes the immunity clause dies there, but one shouldn't be holding one's breath.
Finally, the government presented a tortured legal justification for waterboarding yesterday. I'm not sure how to feel about this ... certainly, I don't find the justification at all convincing, but on the other hand if it might one day allow me to legally justify waterboarding the Senators who voted in favor of the wiretapping immunity legislation (particularly the Democratic ones) I could be persuaded to see the usefulness of the technique.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
DNC in a bind, McCain looking fine
The much-anticipated super-Tuesday primaries went off largely without a hitch (except in New Mexico, where weather and lack of ballots apparently were issues), and by now the results have been hashed over and hashed over until they have been turned into just so much ... well ... hash.
On the Republican side, John McCain has now firmly grasped the front-runners mantle, and barring catastrophe will be the Republican nominee, much to the consternation of Rush, Anne and other such screeching screed-mongers. Huckabee did well enough in the south and bible belt to merit serious consideration as a potential VP for McCain, but not well enough to be considered a long-term threat. Meanwhile, the Romney campaign is reportedly to have serious discussions today about whether to stay in the race.
I think he drops out ... he's sunk a lot of personal funds into the race, clearly is not gaining traction, and given neither McCain nor Huckabee apparently care for him, he is not likely to have much influence at the Republican convention no matter how many delegates he might have.
Meanwhile, as expected neither Clinton nor Obama landed a decisive blow, although Clinton may have gained a very small edge in delegates awarded last night. Numbers should be out later today (I hope). In general, reports are Clinton won among women, Hispanics and older voters, Obama was favored by the young, men and Blacks.
I do think Clinton needed a "knock-out" more than Obama yesterday, for several reasons:
1. The upcoming slate of states seems to favor Obama more than Clinton.
2. Fund-raising seems to have tilted heavily in Obama's favor over the last month. If the race continues into the late Spring, and Obama continues to hold a significant fund-raising advantage, that's going to be a factor.
3. The more spread-out schedule now helps Obama more, in my opinion. Clinton possesses a name-recognition edge, and with so many states to campaign in at once, it was difficult for Obama to make a strong impression in all of them.
However, now the pace slows down again, and the campaigns will be able to focus their time and energy on specific states again. Generally, trends have shown the more uncommitted voters see of Obama and Clinton, the more they tend toward Obama (New Hampshire being a notable exception).
All-in-all, though, the Democratic race now looks like it will go the full distance ... and it's entirely possible the convention could be reached with, say, Obama ahead, but by a margin close enough that counting the Michigan and Florida delegates would swing things in Clinton's favor ... in which case, the convention might become the ugliest any of us will see in our lifetimes. The DNC has only itself to thank for that possibility.
On the Republican side, John McCain has now firmly grasped the front-runners mantle, and barring catastrophe will be the Republican nominee, much to the consternation of Rush, Anne and other such screeching screed-mongers. Huckabee did well enough in the south and bible belt to merit serious consideration as a potential VP for McCain, but not well enough to be considered a long-term threat. Meanwhile, the Romney campaign is reportedly to have serious discussions today about whether to stay in the race.
I think he drops out ... he's sunk a lot of personal funds into the race, clearly is not gaining traction, and given neither McCain nor Huckabee apparently care for him, he is not likely to have much influence at the Republican convention no matter how many delegates he might have.
Meanwhile, as expected neither Clinton nor Obama landed a decisive blow, although Clinton may have gained a very small edge in delegates awarded last night. Numbers should be out later today (I hope). In general, reports are Clinton won among women, Hispanics and older voters, Obama was favored by the young, men and Blacks.
I do think Clinton needed a "knock-out" more than Obama yesterday, for several reasons:
1. The upcoming slate of states seems to favor Obama more than Clinton.
2. Fund-raising seems to have tilted heavily in Obama's favor over the last month. If the race continues into the late Spring, and Obama continues to hold a significant fund-raising advantage, that's going to be a factor.
3. The more spread-out schedule now helps Obama more, in my opinion. Clinton possesses a name-recognition edge, and with so many states to campaign in at once, it was difficult for Obama to make a strong impression in all of them.
However, now the pace slows down again, and the campaigns will be able to focus their time and energy on specific states again. Generally, trends have shown the more uncommitted voters see of Obama and Clinton, the more they tend toward Obama (New Hampshire being a notable exception).
All-in-all, though, the Democratic race now looks like it will go the full distance ... and it's entirely possible the convention could be reached with, say, Obama ahead, but by a margin close enough that counting the Michigan and Florida delegates would swing things in Clinton's favor ... in which case, the convention might become the ugliest any of us will see in our lifetimes. The DNC has only itself to thank for that possibility.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Showing one's work
Trent Humphries, otherwise known as Framer, the founder of and still (somewhat irregular) contributor to the blog Arizona8th, is running as a Republican candidate for the Arizona House of Representatives from district 26. As such, he has a brand spanking new web site up where he promises to provide regular updates and further details about his views and positions.
It's still a work in progress (links to a couple sections aren't active yet, for example ... presumably those are still under work), but just in the couple days the site has been up he has already added a new page titled Restoring Expectations, an explicit list of what voters can expect from him as a candidate and, should he be elected, as a Representative.
What particularly caught my eye was item #6:
If Trent wins election and carries through on this (and I fully believe he would), this, done right, could be a very important marriage of politics and the internet. Trent would be forced to lay out his positions in careful, reasoned manners for all to see and critique. He would be accountable for his positions, and there would be no chance of "confusion" or "misquoting" in transmitting his views through traditional media, since Trent himself would ultimately be responsible for the content of the blog.
Constituents would have a direct line into the reasoning of their Representative, and could decide for themselves whether they agreed, disagreed, partially agreed, felt Trent overlooked some things about the issue, or even ... in certain, rare cases ... might find Trent had considered something they had overlooked.
Without question, this could be very risky - Trent's thoughts would be out there for all to see, including opponents, and his words could easily be used against him in later races. Still, it's a cutting-edge idea, and one I think should be encouraged of all candidates.
It's still a work in progress (links to a couple sections aren't active yet, for example ... presumably those are still under work), but just in the couple days the site has been up he has already added a new page titled Restoring Expectations, an explicit list of what voters can expect from him as a candidate and, should he be elected, as a Representative.
What particularly caught my eye was item #6:
An expectation of "showing my work." I intend to keep a blog after I am elected to discuss, most if not all of the votes I make and how I came around to that decision. Often, a politician assumes that they vote on an island and will sometimes hope that a particular vote goes unnoticed. I will carefully lay out my arguments, and hope that I am persuasive to my constituents.
If Trent wins election and carries through on this (and I fully believe he would), this, done right, could be a very important marriage of politics and the internet. Trent would be forced to lay out his positions in careful, reasoned manners for all to see and critique. He would be accountable for his positions, and there would be no chance of "confusion" or "misquoting" in transmitting his views through traditional media, since Trent himself would ultimately be responsible for the content of the blog.
Constituents would have a direct line into the reasoning of their Representative, and could decide for themselves whether they agreed, disagreed, partially agreed, felt Trent overlooked some things about the issue, or even ... in certain, rare cases ... might find Trent had considered something they had overlooked.
Without question, this could be very risky - Trent's thoughts would be out there for all to see, including opponents, and his words could easily be used against him in later races. Still, it's a cutting-edge idea, and one I think should be encouraged of all candidates.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Romney's Last Stand?
Michigan holds it's primaries today. On the Democratic side of things, because both Edwards and Obama have had their names removed from the ballet while Clinton has not (all over a dispute on Michigan moving it's primary date earlier than the national committee desired), Clinton is expected to gain the majority of the delegates in a walkover. Supposedly, those delegates won't be counted in the nomination race. Yeah, right.
Because of that, all the interesting going-ons involve the Republican race, where McCain and Romney are essentially neck-and-neck, Huckabee trailing them by a little over 10 points. If McCain were to edge Romney here, the consensus seems to be Romney's campaign would be effectively over.
This seems odd on one level - after all, if Romney runs a close second he would have had a 1st and 3 seconds in the initial primaries, which would be a series of successful results in most endeavors. Given the current allocation of delegates it is very likely a close second by Romney would see him actually leading the totals at the end of the evening, and still be considered a dead candidate.
Of course, logic has nothing to do with a political campaign ... it's all about perception, and finishing second is simply being the first loser. All that seems to matter is actually winning a state, no matter how small the margin. If McCain were to edge Romney out again, after doing the same in New Hampshire, McCain would be perceived as having all the momentum while Romney would be seen as a lost cause after not taking any of the three states in which is heavily invested his efforts.
Some subset of Democrats, led by Markos Moulitsas, have reached the conclusion keeping Romney is the race is good for Democrats, and since the Dem primary has no real meaning this year are advocating progressive voters in Michigan take advantage of the state's open primary laws and vote in the Republican primary instead (someone even created a Democrats for Romney YouTube video). Given how close the polling shows the race to be, a few thousand liberal voters crossing over as a bloc to vote for Romney might be sufficient to push him past McCain.
Because of that, all the interesting going-ons involve the Republican race, where McCain and Romney are essentially neck-and-neck, Huckabee trailing them by a little over 10 points. If McCain were to edge Romney here, the consensus seems to be Romney's campaign would be effectively over.
This seems odd on one level - after all, if Romney runs a close second he would have had a 1st and 3 seconds in the initial primaries, which would be a series of successful results in most endeavors. Given the current allocation of delegates it is very likely a close second by Romney would see him actually leading the totals at the end of the evening, and still be considered a dead candidate.
Of course, logic has nothing to do with a political campaign ... it's all about perception, and finishing second is simply being the first loser. All that seems to matter is actually winning a state, no matter how small the margin. If McCain were to edge Romney out again, after doing the same in New Hampshire, McCain would be perceived as having all the momentum while Romney would be seen as a lost cause after not taking any of the three states in which is heavily invested his efforts.
Some subset of Democrats, led by Markos Moulitsas, have reached the conclusion keeping Romney is the race is good for Democrats, and since the Dem primary has no real meaning this year are advocating progressive voters in Michigan take advantage of the state's open primary laws and vote in the Republican primary instead (someone even created a Democrats for Romney YouTube video). Given how close the polling shows the race to be, a few thousand liberal voters crossing over as a bloc to vote for Romney might be sufficient to push him past McCain.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
It's ... alive!
In the best tradition of zombie movies, Hillary Clinton proved reports of her (political) death were greatly exaggerated, rallying to edge Barack Obama in the New Hampshire primary last night. John Edwards was a distant third.
I imagine Liza and Roger were very disappointed with those results. I know I was.
Yesterday morning there was discussion of Obama having double-digit leads in polling, reports of a number of uncommitted Senators being in discussions to declare their support for his campaign, questions about whether Clinton's financing was drying up, discussion of an overhaul of the Clinton campaign staff, even speculation about Clinton ending her campaign if she was decisively defeated for a second time.
I haven't checked the blogosphere yet today, but I would guess there's none of that talk now.
I can't think of anything I read or heard the last two days that anticipated this result. Literally the only item I can recall that pointed in this direction was a one-sentence statement I saw somewhere (and now can't find) indicating that focus groups watching the NH debate tended to see support for Obama move over toward Clinton, but even that was buried in a much longer story discussing the Obama surge.
As in Iowa, voters turned out in record numbers, and as in Iowa far more votes were cast in the Democratic primary than the Republican one. ABC news found about 40% of the voters in each primary were Independents, and ultimately this likely cost Obama - Clinton has consistently drawn more support from established Democratic voters, while Obama beats her decisively among the unaffiliated. With McCain also drawing heavy support among Independents, it appears he may have attracted enough of them to vote in the Republican primary to condemn Obama to second in the Democratic one.
Clinton will get more help in a week when she wins Michigan in a walkover. Yes, I know the DNC has said the state's delegates won't be counted at the convention, but you don't really believe that, do you?
I do believe Obama and his campaign did a very poor job of managing expectations in New Hampshire in the few days between Iowa and yesterday. Just as Iowa is in his backyard, New Hampshire is the same for Clinton. She should have do well there, and polls for months had shown her with a massive lead. Handled correctly, finishing within 8,000 votes and 3% of her would have been viewed as a victory. Instead, it's being viewed as a defeat ... and I am afraid this defeat hurts Obama far more than losing Iowa hurt Clinton.
Edwards can't be under any illusions at this point, he knows he will not garner the nomination. Still, with neither Clinton or Obama looking inevitable now, it's entirely possible for Edwards to earn enough delegates to play a substantial role in determining which of the other two does win the primary, and that likely is worth staying in for the long haul. I would think he would be far more likely to align with Obama than Clinton when the time comes ... but last night's results have already shown what can happen to expectations.
Expected form did hold on the Republican side, where McCain comfortably defeated Romney, everyone else being much further back. For whatever reason, voters there really like him, and that carried him through despite New England being Romney's "home region" and dropping big sums of money into the state.
No matter how you slice it, Romney is now in trouble. He had been counting on winning one of Iowa or New Hampshire to indicate viability and open up the money spigots. However, with Huckabee cutting into his religious votes and McCain the independent ones, Romney is looking increasingly like a candidate with just enough support to stay in the race, but not quite enough to win.
Sooner or later, you figure he's got to decide he can't keep throwing his own money into the ravenous maw that is a Presidential campaign. I saw somewhere yesterday he's up to $53 million so far. Maybe Bloomberg has some spare change lying around he could pitch in.
I imagine Liza and Roger were very disappointed with those results. I know I was.
Yesterday morning there was discussion of Obama having double-digit leads in polling, reports of a number of uncommitted Senators being in discussions to declare their support for his campaign, questions about whether Clinton's financing was drying up, discussion of an overhaul of the Clinton campaign staff, even speculation about Clinton ending her campaign if she was decisively defeated for a second time.
I haven't checked the blogosphere yet today, but I would guess there's none of that talk now.
I can't think of anything I read or heard the last two days that anticipated this result. Literally the only item I can recall that pointed in this direction was a one-sentence statement I saw somewhere (and now can't find) indicating that focus groups watching the NH debate tended to see support for Obama move over toward Clinton, but even that was buried in a much longer story discussing the Obama surge.
As in Iowa, voters turned out in record numbers, and as in Iowa far more votes were cast in the Democratic primary than the Republican one. ABC news found about 40% of the voters in each primary were Independents, and ultimately this likely cost Obama - Clinton has consistently drawn more support from established Democratic voters, while Obama beats her decisively among the unaffiliated. With McCain also drawing heavy support among Independents, it appears he may have attracted enough of them to vote in the Republican primary to condemn Obama to second in the Democratic one.
Clinton will get more help in a week when she wins Michigan in a walkover. Yes, I know the DNC has said the state's delegates won't be counted at the convention, but you don't really believe that, do you?
I do believe Obama and his campaign did a very poor job of managing expectations in New Hampshire in the few days between Iowa and yesterday. Just as Iowa is in his backyard, New Hampshire is the same for Clinton. She should have do well there, and polls for months had shown her with a massive lead. Handled correctly, finishing within 8,000 votes and 3% of her would have been viewed as a victory. Instead, it's being viewed as a defeat ... and I am afraid this defeat hurts Obama far more than losing Iowa hurt Clinton.
Edwards can't be under any illusions at this point, he knows he will not garner the nomination. Still, with neither Clinton or Obama looking inevitable now, it's entirely possible for Edwards to earn enough delegates to play a substantial role in determining which of the other two does win the primary, and that likely is worth staying in for the long haul. I would think he would be far more likely to align with Obama than Clinton when the time comes ... but last night's results have already shown what can happen to expectations.
Expected form did hold on the Republican side, where McCain comfortably defeated Romney, everyone else being much further back. For whatever reason, voters there really like him, and that carried him through despite New England being Romney's "home region" and dropping big sums of money into the state.
No matter how you slice it, Romney is now in trouble. He had been counting on winning one of Iowa or New Hampshire to indicate viability and open up the money spigots. However, with Huckabee cutting into his religious votes and McCain the independent ones, Romney is looking increasingly like a candidate with just enough support to stay in the race, but not quite enough to win.
Sooner or later, you figure he's got to decide he can't keep throwing his own money into the ravenous maw that is a Presidential campaign. I saw somewhere yesterday he's up to $53 million so far. Maybe Bloomberg has some spare change lying around he could pitch in.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Agent of CHANGE?
"Change" was the new mantra for the Domcratic party presidential candidates in the recent New Hampshire debate over the weekend. X4mr already touched on some of the reasons for this in his post last night, but anyone who didn't watch the debate missed how overwhelming a theme it was - at times it seemed the candidates felt the need to stress "change" the same way Giuliani reflexively spits out "9/11" in every other sentence.
Apparently the lesson Clinton took from Iowa was the message of "change" promoted by the Obama and Edwards campaigns trumped her message of "expertise" there, and she immediately set about putting that lesson to use. Whether it's good use or not remains to be seen.
Being cynical about such things, I have a hard time believing Clinton, who has unquestionably been running the most cautious campaign among the Democrats, who clearly has the closest ties to the party institutions and apparatchiks, truly embraces the concept the same way many of the Iowa voters did.
Don't get me wrong - should Clinton win nomination, and subsequently the Presidency, there will be changes from the way the country has been run the past seven years, and (in my opinion) many of those changes would be for the better. However, they would also be incremental, small change, changes within the existing structure.
If Clinton wins, things may change, but they won't CHANGE. If Democratic voters really hope to break out of the current structure and promote some form of seismic change, changes which will truly alter the political discussion in long-term ways, then they need to look to Obama or Edwards. Electing either is not a sufficient condition to create such change, but it is a necessary one.
Apparently the lesson Clinton took from Iowa was the message of "change" promoted by the Obama and Edwards campaigns trumped her message of "expertise" there, and she immediately set about putting that lesson to use. Whether it's good use or not remains to be seen.
Being cynical about such things, I have a hard time believing Clinton, who has unquestionably been running the most cautious campaign among the Democrats, who clearly has the closest ties to the party institutions and apparatchiks, truly embraces the concept the same way many of the Iowa voters did.
Don't get me wrong - should Clinton win nomination, and subsequently the Presidency, there will be changes from the way the country has been run the past seven years, and (in my opinion) many of those changes would be for the better. However, they would also be incremental, small change, changes within the existing structure.
If Clinton wins, things may change, but they won't CHANGE. If Democratic voters really hope to break out of the current structure and promote some form of seismic change, changes which will truly alter the political discussion in long-term ways, then they need to look to Obama or Edwards. Electing either is not a sufficient condition to create such change, but it is a necessary one.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Market analysis
I've written about prediction markets before, and with the start of the primary season officially upon us, and the race on the Democratic side expected to be tight, I couldn't resist revisiting Intrade to see what the speculators think will happen in the Iowa primaries.
As I write this, the market is trading Obama shares at 66.1, meaning the feeling is there is just about a 2/3 chance Obama wins tonight. Clinton shares are at 19.3, Edwards at 15.0. Also interesting is the change just today - Obama closed last night at 56, so he's up 10.1 points. Most of that has come at the expense of Clinton, who is down 9.2 from yesterday's close, while Edwards is down 2.1
I suspect the fairly steep change is in reaction to a Reuters/C-Span/Zogby poll which shows Obama moving out to a four-point lead over Edwards, with Clinton another three points back. Looking at the history, Obama shares were down to about 30 as recently as Dec. 31, meaning traders are extremely bullish about his chances.
Obama's had some good news this week, particularly in light of the Reuters poll and Des Moines Register poll yesterday which also showed him taking the lead. Still, that's a huge surge in Obama confidence, and seems much more "reactive" than I would have expected from a predictions market.
It's also worth noting that investors have far less confidence in Edwards than his polling results would seem to merit. He might be a good investment, if anyone is so inclined.
On the Republican side, investors are heavily backing Huckabee, who is trading at 70.1, up 11.1 today and also the beneficiary of a large surge in confidence over the past five days or so. Romney shares are at 29.7 (down 8.3 today) and no one else is given a chance - McCain is third favorite at 0.9, and looks like good value at that price, to be honest.
Looking ahead at upcoming primaries, I see shares of Fred Thompson winning in Nevada are currently trading at 8.9. I suggest you sell, quickly.
As I write this, the market is trading Obama shares at 66.1, meaning the feeling is there is just about a 2/3 chance Obama wins tonight. Clinton shares are at 19.3, Edwards at 15.0. Also interesting is the change just today - Obama closed last night at 56, so he's up 10.1 points. Most of that has come at the expense of Clinton, who is down 9.2 from yesterday's close, while Edwards is down 2.1
I suspect the fairly steep change is in reaction to a Reuters/C-Span/Zogby poll which shows Obama moving out to a four-point lead over Edwards, with Clinton another three points back. Looking at the history, Obama shares were down to about 30 as recently as Dec. 31, meaning traders are extremely bullish about his chances.
Obama's had some good news this week, particularly in light of the Reuters poll and Des Moines Register poll yesterday which also showed him taking the lead. Still, that's a huge surge in Obama confidence, and seems much more "reactive" than I would have expected from a predictions market.
It's also worth noting that investors have far less confidence in Edwards than his polling results would seem to merit. He might be a good investment, if anyone is so inclined.
On the Republican side, investors are heavily backing Huckabee, who is trading at 70.1, up 11.1 today and also the beneficiary of a large surge in confidence over the past five days or so. Romney shares are at 29.7 (down 8.3 today) and no one else is given a chance - McCain is third favorite at 0.9, and looks like good value at that price, to be honest.
Looking ahead at upcoming primaries, I see shares of Fred Thompson winning in Nevada are currently trading at 8.9. I suggest you sell, quickly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)