Democrats, Primaries etc - Since I'm not sure where to put this one
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
I find it interesting and I don't have the time to research it, but how many times has a VP been on the ticket for multiple different top-ticket candidates? Could Edwards end up VP choice again?
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
taki, your analogy is a bit off (though I know others are making it, too). Reagan was considered a scary/dangerous radical, and unelectable in a Goldwater way (too far away from the mainstream consensus), but he was never considered to be a candidate of no substance -- he had far too much of the wrong substance, if anything. The better parallel, in this cycle, is Edwards, whom the press have so far successfully marginalized as crazy and angry. Obama as candidate is a bit more like Jimmy Carter was...selling himself as a gleaming personality who'd transcend the political gap. It didn't work out that well in Jimmy's case.
I'm mostly with Akash on his view of why young people (frequently low-information voters) have latched onto Obama. They (wrongly) consider him the most progressive candidate, and go wild for him on symbolic rather than real issues. He is, clearly, a better candidate than Hillary would be (Hillary offers the lethal cocktail of voters thinking she's the most liberal and her actual policies being the least liberal), and Steph's reaction suggests many people were convinced (by media concentration) that Obama was the sole alternative to the Clinton run.
Despite what you'll hear in the press over the next days, this campaign is not necessarily over. What's key is how Edwards performs, vis a vis Hillary, in the next contests (NH and NV). Obama will almost certainly win NH, but if Edwards drops Hillary to third again, the dynamics of the race could change utterly -- Hillary could, like inevitable-front-runner Muskie in '72, collapse, making it more an Obama/Edwards wine-vs.-beer-drinkers race down the stretch, which could be closer than many think.
Alternatively, if Hillary wins NH, Edwards will probably be deserted by anti-Hil voters, who will coalesce around Obama despite their misgivings.
Somthing to remember, especially in light of today's economic news: Democrats are almost surely picking not just a candidate but the next president. We're undeniably in recession territory now; add that to the many failures of the Bush administration (Iraq, Katrina, Schiavo, Gonzales, on and on) and the GOP, whoever their candidate, will find it impossible to win in such an environment. The question for Dems is, who is best positioned to take advantage of such an historic opportunity -- the way Reagan was for his side in 1980.
I'm mostly with Akash on his view of why young people (frequently low-information voters) have latched onto Obama. They (wrongly) consider him the most progressive candidate, and go wild for him on symbolic rather than real issues. He is, clearly, a better candidate than Hillary would be (Hillary offers the lethal cocktail of voters thinking she's the most liberal and her actual policies being the least liberal), and Steph's reaction suggests many people were convinced (by media concentration) that Obama was the sole alternative to the Clinton run.
Despite what you'll hear in the press over the next days, this campaign is not necessarily over. What's key is how Edwards performs, vis a vis Hillary, in the next contests (NH and NV). Obama will almost certainly win NH, but if Edwards drops Hillary to third again, the dynamics of the race could change utterly -- Hillary could, like inevitable-front-runner Muskie in '72, collapse, making it more an Obama/Edwards wine-vs.-beer-drinkers race down the stretch, which could be closer than many think.
Alternatively, if Hillary wins NH, Edwards will probably be deserted by anti-Hil voters, who will coalesce around Obama despite their misgivings.
Somthing to remember, especially in light of today's economic news: Democrats are almost surely picking not just a candidate but the next president. We're undeniably in recession territory now; add that to the many failures of the Bush administration (Iraq, Katrina, Schiavo, Gonzales, on and on) and the GOP, whoever their candidate, will find it impossible to win in such an environment. The question for Dems is, who is best positioned to take advantage of such an historic opportunity -- the way Reagan was for his side in 1980.
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19340
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Some of us still consider Reagan a lightweight.
A couple of things are heartening about the Obama win. First, that he carried most of the counties in 97% white Iowa, including the most conservative county, that he carried the women's vote in a heavy turnout. This is an early indicator that the country is indeed hungry for change. He has the momemntum. Now let's see if he has the staying power to win the nomination and the election and how much he can really get done once elected.
A couple of things are heartening about the Obama win. First, that he carried most of the counties in 97% white Iowa, including the most conservative county, that he carried the women's vote in a heavy turnout. This is an early indicator that the country is indeed hungry for change. He has the momemntum. Now let's see if he has the staying power to win the nomination and the election and how much he can really get done once elected.
Regarding Obama. Maybe I am talking nonsense, but as an outsider I can see him becoming the Ronald Reagen of the Democratic Party.
If I am correct, and any correction from the oldest members like Magilla is absolutely welcome, Reagan too was considered a political lightweight with little substance behind his optimistic rhetoric. He even was ridiculed by Bush senior(voodoo economics).
But once elected he transformed the political landscape for a generation, for good or bad, that I live up to you to decide.
If I am correct, and any correction from the oldest members like Magilla is absolutely welcome, Reagan too was considered a political lightweight with little substance behind his optimistic rhetoric. He even was ridiculed by Bush senior(voodoo economics).
But once elected he transformed the political landscape for a generation, for good or bad, that I live up to you to decide.
Yes she really is. This is why I was always afraid of her getting the nomination. She's a very polarizing figure and despite her initial lead in the national polls, I doubt she could actually win the Presidency.Big Magilla wrote:What struck me about the CNN coverage was that all the reporters and commentators seemed to have been overjoyed that Hillary lost. I guess she's more hated than I ever would have thought.
ROTFLMAO!Greg wrote:Mister Tee wrote:Akash wrote:Wow. I hate CNN. Some white old male political analyst was praising Obama by saying, "He never brings race into it (he meant this as a positive). You don't have to act like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. He does this with dignity."
Akash, you're obviously new to politics: that wasn't just any old white guy; that was Bill Bennett -- one of the smuggest right-wing assholes on the planet.
I think the real reason Bennett praised Obama was because he laid $100k on him when his Iowa odds were still 2-1.
Funniest post of the new year!
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19340
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
I think the real reason Bennett praised Obama was because he laid $100k on him when his Iowa odds were still 2-1.Mister Tee wrote:Akash wrote:Wow. I hate CNN. Some white old male political analyst was praising Obama by saying, "He never brings race into it (he meant this as a positive). You don't have to act like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. He does this with dignity."
Akash, you're obviously new to politics: that wasn't just any old white guy; that was Bill Bennett -- one of the smuggest right-wing assholes on the planet.
The Guardian/UK
Published on Thursday, January 3, 2008
I Hate Iowa
by Conor Clarke
The first contest in the US presidential primaries is a perversion of democracy that does not deserve to be taken seriously
If a gaffe, as Michael Kinsley defined it, is when a politician tells the truth in public, then Ohio’s Governor Ted Strickland’s recent comments fit the bill. In an interview in the Columbus Dispatch newspaper, Strickland said the upcoming Iowa caucus “makes no sense,” and that he would “like to see both parties say, ‘We’re going to bring this to an end.’”
The reaction was swift and brutal. Strickland had been campaigning on behalf of Hillary Clinton, and competing campaigns sent the interview to reporters, hoping to get a bounce from the governor’s perceived disdain for a holy institution of the Hawkeye State. By late Sunday night the Clinton handlers had issued a statement distancing the candidate from Strickland’s remarks: “Senator Clinton has worked her heart out campaigning in Iowa because she knows it plays a unique and special role in the nominating process and that process must be protected,” it said. “On this issue Hillary and Governor Strickland strongly disagree.”
Strickland was, of course, 100% right. The Iowa Caucus makes no sense. And in a year in which the state is poised to play a bigger role than usual - a role the Washington Post calls “wildly disproportionate” to its size - it’s worth considering just how silly it is that we take tomorrow’s caucus seriously.
The silliness starts with the caucus’s lack of democratic credentials. On the Democratic side of the race, the candidates aren’t competing for votes; they’re competing for “delegate equivalents”, 2500 of which are spread across the state’s 99 counties and 1784 voting precincts. There wouldn’t be a problem with this if the delegates were distributed proportionally, but they aren’t - they’re distributed based on an abstruse and semi-proportional formula that creates big differences in the number of voters each delegate represents. This is not a minor issue. In 2004, there were 79.21 voters per delegate in Johnson County and 22.29 voters per delegate in Fremont County (the state average was 40.73). This means that the preference of a voter in Fremont is almost four times as valuable as the preference of a voter in Johnson.
Then there’s the fact that a candidate needs to have the support of at least 15% of the voters in a precinct before qualifying for any of its delegates. Backers of a candidate who doesn’t receive the requisite support become what are artlessly referred to as “spare voters” - that is, voters who are free to throw their support behind a second candidate. Caucus goers can make a plea for their support, but most of the wheedling takes place between candidates themselves: they cut deals promising hand over their spares (in exchange for god-knows-what) if they don’t reach 15%. (Dennis Kucinich just urged his supporters to do this for Obama.) This creates an orgy of possibilities for how a candidate’s statewide support could be over- or under-inflated.
And then there’s the event itself. On the evening of the caucus, Democrats show up at the designated locations (schools, libraries and the like) and spend a couple of hours deliberating. When they’re ready to vote they stand in a part of the room designated for a particular candidate. Then there is a head count. (Yes, a head count.)
You might notice that there’s nothing terribly anonymous about this process. Indeed, some Iowans seem to think this is a good thing. While describing the caucus to reporters this Saturday, the political director of the state’s Democratic Party related a “wonderful anecdote” meant to relay how “personal” the process can be: two women from Fort Dodge found themselves on opposite sides of the room and during the 1980 caucus and haven’t spoken since. I suppose a 28-year-old grudge could be considered pretty wonderful. I guess I’m of the opinion that the secret ballot is just one of those tried-and-true elements of a modern democracy. In fact, such a guarantee is right there is Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Republican caucus is less awful - it basically resembles a straw poll - but spending a couple of hours caucusing on a Thursday evening is still a prospect that skews outcomes. (Do you work late? Early? Have kids? Out of town? Bed-bound?) For this reason, turnout tends to be incredibly low: this year’s prediction is 10% for the Democrats and 12% for the Republicans. For comparison, turnout in the last presidential election was almost 60%.
It’s annoying that this process exerts so much influence over presidential elections, and I’m embarrassed that people in Iowa actually they think “deserve” to occupy the first slot of primary campaign. Iowa apologists drone on about how caucus goers “are better informed, more aware of political issues, more involved, and in general much more the kind of citizens political scientists always want to find,” and the Clinton campaign’s Strickland statement swooned that “Iowans are entrusted with this responsibility because they take it so seriously.”
But this is crazy. If anything, Iowans are more engaged because they are oversaturated. Tens of millions of dollars are spent trying to bribe, trick and cajole the state’s residents into the right corner of the caucus room. The Washington Post reports that “some undecided voters will be contacted hundreds of times by the various campaigns” before the caucus. Hundreds of times! This coddling comes at a price: the time and effort that could be spent on the millions of voters that happen to live outside a patch of land wedged between Minnesota and Missouri. We should stop pretending that Iowans are the virtuous guardians of our election process. They are its spoiled and pampered babies.
Conor Clarke is a journalist in the Guardian’s Washington, DC office. He has also written for the New Republic, Slate, the Washington Monthly and the American Prospect, among others publications.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/03/6139/
Published on Thursday, January 3, 2008
I Hate Iowa
by Conor Clarke
The first contest in the US presidential primaries is a perversion of democracy that does not deserve to be taken seriously
If a gaffe, as Michael Kinsley defined it, is when a politician tells the truth in public, then Ohio’s Governor Ted Strickland’s recent comments fit the bill. In an interview in the Columbus Dispatch newspaper, Strickland said the upcoming Iowa caucus “makes no sense,” and that he would “like to see both parties say, ‘We’re going to bring this to an end.’”
The reaction was swift and brutal. Strickland had been campaigning on behalf of Hillary Clinton, and competing campaigns sent the interview to reporters, hoping to get a bounce from the governor’s perceived disdain for a holy institution of the Hawkeye State. By late Sunday night the Clinton handlers had issued a statement distancing the candidate from Strickland’s remarks: “Senator Clinton has worked her heart out campaigning in Iowa because she knows it plays a unique and special role in the nominating process and that process must be protected,” it said. “On this issue Hillary and Governor Strickland strongly disagree.”
Strickland was, of course, 100% right. The Iowa Caucus makes no sense. And in a year in which the state is poised to play a bigger role than usual - a role the Washington Post calls “wildly disproportionate” to its size - it’s worth considering just how silly it is that we take tomorrow’s caucus seriously.
The silliness starts with the caucus’s lack of democratic credentials. On the Democratic side of the race, the candidates aren’t competing for votes; they’re competing for “delegate equivalents”, 2500 of which are spread across the state’s 99 counties and 1784 voting precincts. There wouldn’t be a problem with this if the delegates were distributed proportionally, but they aren’t - they’re distributed based on an abstruse and semi-proportional formula that creates big differences in the number of voters each delegate represents. This is not a minor issue. In 2004, there were 79.21 voters per delegate in Johnson County and 22.29 voters per delegate in Fremont County (the state average was 40.73). This means that the preference of a voter in Fremont is almost four times as valuable as the preference of a voter in Johnson.
Then there’s the fact that a candidate needs to have the support of at least 15% of the voters in a precinct before qualifying for any of its delegates. Backers of a candidate who doesn’t receive the requisite support become what are artlessly referred to as “spare voters” - that is, voters who are free to throw their support behind a second candidate. Caucus goers can make a plea for their support, but most of the wheedling takes place between candidates themselves: they cut deals promising hand over their spares (in exchange for god-knows-what) if they don’t reach 15%. (Dennis Kucinich just urged his supporters to do this for Obama.) This creates an orgy of possibilities for how a candidate’s statewide support could be over- or under-inflated.
And then there’s the event itself. On the evening of the caucus, Democrats show up at the designated locations (schools, libraries and the like) and spend a couple of hours deliberating. When they’re ready to vote they stand in a part of the room designated for a particular candidate. Then there is a head count. (Yes, a head count.)
You might notice that there’s nothing terribly anonymous about this process. Indeed, some Iowans seem to think this is a good thing. While describing the caucus to reporters this Saturday, the political director of the state’s Democratic Party related a “wonderful anecdote” meant to relay how “personal” the process can be: two women from Fort Dodge found themselves on opposite sides of the room and during the 1980 caucus and haven’t spoken since. I suppose a 28-year-old grudge could be considered pretty wonderful. I guess I’m of the opinion that the secret ballot is just one of those tried-and-true elements of a modern democracy. In fact, such a guarantee is right there is Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Republican caucus is less awful - it basically resembles a straw poll - but spending a couple of hours caucusing on a Thursday evening is still a prospect that skews outcomes. (Do you work late? Early? Have kids? Out of town? Bed-bound?) For this reason, turnout tends to be incredibly low: this year’s prediction is 10% for the Democrats and 12% for the Republicans. For comparison, turnout in the last presidential election was almost 60%.
It’s annoying that this process exerts so much influence over presidential elections, and I’m embarrassed that people in Iowa actually they think “deserve” to occupy the first slot of primary campaign. Iowa apologists drone on about how caucus goers “are better informed, more aware of political issues, more involved, and in general much more the kind of citizens political scientists always want to find,” and the Clinton campaign’s Strickland statement swooned that “Iowans are entrusted with this responsibility because they take it so seriously.”
But this is crazy. If anything, Iowans are more engaged because they are oversaturated. Tens of millions of dollars are spent trying to bribe, trick and cajole the state’s residents into the right corner of the caucus room. The Washington Post reports that “some undecided voters will be contacted hundreds of times by the various campaigns” before the caucus. Hundreds of times! This coddling comes at a price: the time and effort that could be spent on the millions of voters that happen to live outside a patch of land wedged between Minnesota and Missouri. We should stop pretending that Iowans are the virtuous guardians of our election process. They are its spoiled and pampered babies.
Conor Clarke is a journalist in the Guardian’s Washington, DC office. He has also written for the New Republic, Slate, the Washington Monthly and the American Prospect, among others publications.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/03/6139/
Johnny Guitar wrote:But rest assured, everyone. Obama is going to bring MAJOR CHANGE, doods. Just don't ask him, or his supporters, to actually follow up on any of it.
Exactly. Just like the Dems promised us change in 2006, we gave them the House and the Senate and what did they do? Reinstated the Patriot Act, gave Bush a pass on his wiretapping, gave him more money for his war, and backed off their Iran position, among other atrocities. We couldn't even count on seemingly true liberals like Barney Frank who spearheaded that bill to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation but felt it was okay to leave out transsexuals and transgenders because nothing fights discrimination like discriminating against a group even less privileged than you are. And then there's Pelosi (who should have been a lesson against the empty promise of identity politics) -- first female Speaker of the House! Yes, and also a woman who hasn't met a homeless person she didn't despise.
These people are cowardly, lousy and not much different from the Republicans. Watching the caucus was what I like to call "television to slit your wrists to."
Edited By Akash on 1199458900
-
Johnny Guitar
- Assistant
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 5:14 pm
- Location: Chicago
Out on New Year's, I made the mistake of talking politics with a friend of a friend (someone I'd met that night). She was a big Obama backer. When she asked who I liked (and I said Kucinich, of course), she went off on this tirade. "But Kucinich isn't going to win. If you want to see actual change in people's lives you have to talk about people who will get elected."
I pointed out that there was a difference between being asked a personal preference and being asked to make a prediction, but she didn't get it. (Otherwise "who do you like" becomes a sports question--"who do you like for the playoffs this season?") But rest assured, everyone. Obama is going to bring MAJOR CHANGE, doods. Just don't ask him, or his supporters, to actually follow up on any of it. My prediction for Democrats in 2010-11, should Obama win the White House: they'll be just like Republicans in Bush's second term, pretending that they were never swept up by the hype and bullshit, pretending they were never taken in by Obama's radical politics of hope or whatever, pretending that they never yelled at dissenters for failing to toe the party line.
Though this New Year's acquaintance couldn't stand Hillary, she hated the fact that Hillary was tarred as being "a Clinton." ("I loved Bill, he was amazing. He and Hillary are SO different." I asked her for the specifics of some of these massive differences and changes she kept talking about. "Um, health care! Tax reform!" I asked if she'd be more specific and point to what about these policies indicated such massive changes. "What do you mean? I just told you. Health care. Tax reform. How can I possibly be any more specific?")
I pointed out that there was a difference between being asked a personal preference and being asked to make a prediction, but she didn't get it. (Otherwise "who do you like" becomes a sports question--"who do you like for the playoffs this season?") But rest assured, everyone. Obama is going to bring MAJOR CHANGE, doods. Just don't ask him, or his supporters, to actually follow up on any of it. My prediction for Democrats in 2010-11, should Obama win the White House: they'll be just like Republicans in Bush's second term, pretending that they were never swept up by the hype and bullshit, pretending they were never taken in by Obama's radical politics of hope or whatever, pretending that they never yelled at dissenters for failing to toe the party line.
Though this New Year's acquaintance couldn't stand Hillary, she hated the fact that Hillary was tarred as being "a Clinton." ("I loved Bill, he was amazing. He and Hillary are SO different." I asked her for the specifics of some of these massive differences and changes she kept talking about. "Um, health care! Tax reform!" I asked if she'd be more specific and point to what about these policies indicated such massive changes. "What do you mean? I just told you. Health care. Tax reform. How can I possibly be any more specific?")
I think Obama's appeal lies not only with the so-called "hip," "cool" factor, but also that he seems so positive--he engenders a sense of hope that change really is possible, even if his speeches and statements don't indicate precisely what that change will be.
I can't stand Hillary--gosh, that name just is evil, isn't it?
I can't stand Hillary--gosh, that name just is evil, isn't it?
"...it is the weak who are cruel, and...gentleness is only to be expected from the strong." - Leo Reston
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
Then I must be one of them because for all his flaws, I still find him way more appealing than Hillary. Edwards is the best of the top three, but Hillary Clinton is just horrible. Her vote for the Iraq war alone was a cold, calculated decision on her part to make herself seem tough and masculine. She chose political opportunity over the lives of American soldiers and innocent Iraqi citizens, and that kind of thing should be unforgivable. I can't stand her.Akash wrote:And his campaign cleverly targeted America's fickle youth who are always desperate to hitch their wagon to the ride of the latest fad lest they be left behind in the Uncool, where they might actually have to pick up that most dreaded American pastime -- Independent Thinking!