| |
Saturday, February 09, 2008
What's Up with the Democrats?I always have to caution myself when analyzing events on the other side of the aisle. We all know how hopelessly badly the liberals tend to understand Republicans; I am humble enough to recognize that in all probability I'm as lousy at handicapping their entries. Chris Bowers at Open Left says he will leave the Democrats if something happens or doesn't happen, involving the Super Delegates. See if you can figure it out: This is not a negotiable position. If the Democratic Party does not nominate the candidate for POTUS that the majority (or plurality) of its participants in primaries and caucuses want it to nominate, then I will quit the Democratic Party. If you think this is somehow rejecting the rules and bylaws of the Democratic Party, you are wrong. The fact is that there is nothing in the bylaws of the Democratic Party that dictate how super delegates should vote at the Democratic national convention. In the absence of any legal dictation of how they should vote, I will hold them to the principles that make me a Democrat: as the democratic institution through which internal disputes of the American center-left are resolved. If the Democratic Party fails to respect those principles, and their "super" delegates nominate someone for POTUS other than the person who received the most support during Democratic primaries and caucuses, then I fail to see any reason to continue participating in the Democratic Party. If the Democratic Party is not a democratic institution, then to hell with the Democratic Party. A champion of Democracy? Errr, no. Obviously this leaves an unsettled question as to quite what Bowers means by "most support during the Democratic primaries and caucuses", as a commenter points out. Chris responds: A 1% lead or more in pledged delegates from all 50 states and every territory. If it falls in between the plus or minus 1% range, I'll cut some lack. Otherwise, none. Well, let's go over to the RCP delegates page to see who that means currently. Hillary leads in total delegates, 1079 to 1017. However, that includes the Super Delegates. If those are excluded, Obama leads barely, by 880-868. It is well-established that in the next few states, Obama will probably do well, so he will widen that lead, but may or may not catch Hillary in the real total. In the real world, I don't know what the total vote count is so far, but I strongly suspect that Hillary has won more popular votes than Obama, with his big wins in the South and Illinois matched by her victories in the Mid-Atlantic states and California. This site indicates that Hillary has outpolled Obama so far by 8.9 million to 8.4 million. Where's Bowers' pledge to leave the party if it does not abide by the popular vote? Labels: Barack Obama, Chris Bowers, Democrats, Hillary Clinton, OpenLeft
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Poll Vault South CarolinaOnce again, a LOT more people came out for the Democratic primary; somewhere around 20% more. In a state where Republicans got 40% more of the vote in the general election in 2004. I don't see a good way to spin that positively for the GOP. Although turnout was only 51%-49% male to female on the Republican side, it was 61%-39% female to male today. Running the numbers reveals that overall 537,000 women came out to vote in SC, while 430,000 men cast ballots. Although women did support Hillary more than men in the Palmetto State, they still voted overwhelmingly for Barack. If the Clinton's goal was to define Obama as the black candidate, then it appears that in South Carolina they succeeded. Barack won huge margins among blacks of all ages, not only lost white voters of all ages over 30, but finished third, behind Edwards and Clinton. Obama loses votes steadily as the population ages, something that does not bode well for him in Florida. Interestingly Edwards' percentage went up steadily as religious attendance declined. There was a sense of reality among voters; even those who voted for Obama appear to recognize that Hillary is more electable and more qualified to be Commander in Chief (my God!). Despite Edward's populism, he did slightly better among college graduates than those without a degree, and his percentage of the vote pretty steadily rose with income. Is it ironic that socialism seems more popular with the wealthy than the poor. Labels: Barack Obama, Democrats, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, South Carolina
Monday, November 05, 2007
How Delusional Are the Nutroots?So delusional that they may manage to keep the Democrats from winning in 2008. Why am I so pissed at Democrats lately? Simply put, it feels like many Democrats are taking something that does not belong to them--their excellent 2006 and 2008 electoral advantages--and then thoroughly ruining it. Well, if the excellent electoral advantages do not belong to the Democrats, to whom do they belong? Answer: the Nutroots. While Democrats were capitulating on the Iraq war and badly losing the 2002 elections anyway, it was the netroots who were forcing the removal of Trent Lott as new majority leader before the new Congress even started. While Democrats were praising Bush's invasion, it was the netroots who were re-invigorating small donors and on the ground progressive activists with anti-war messaging and candidates like Howard Dean. Blogs and organizations like MoveOn.org are the reason why Democrats closed the fundraising and activism gap on Republicans in 2004 and 2006, While Democrats were capitulating on the Iraq war and badly losing the 2002 elections anyway, it was the netroots who were forcing the removal of Trent Lott as new majority leader before the new Congress even started. While Democrats were praising Bush's invasion, it was the netroots who were re-invigorating small donors and on the ground progressive activists with anti-war messaging and candidates like Howard Dean. Blogs and organizations like MoveOn.org are the reason why Democrats closed the fundraising and activism gap on Republicans in 2004 and 2006... In fact, the reason why the Democrats are doing so well now is nothing that they have done, or that the Nutroots have done. It's what the Republicans have done, and what they have failed to do. We joked about how the Democrats ran in 2004 on the platform that "We're not Republicans"; that failed (but still ended up much closer than anybody had a right to expect) in 2004, but it succeeded in 2006 and 2008 looks very much like more of the same. Labels: 2008 Election, Democrats, Netroots Kooks
Friday, February 23, 2007
Do-Over DemsTalk about stupid ideas: Senate Democratic leaders intend to unveil a plan next week to repeal the 2002 resolution authorizing the war in Iraq in favor of narrower authority that restricts the military's role and begins withdrawals of combat troops.
House Democrats have pulled back from efforts to link additional funding for the war to strict troop-readiness standards after the proposal came under withering fire from Republicans and from their party's own moderates. That strategy was championed by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) and endorsed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). And do you know what's going to prevent this from happening? The fact that the Republicans did not use the nuclear option last year. If they had, there would be no 60 votes required for cloture. Since the Democrats will not get 60 votes in favor of cutting off debate, they will not be able to pass the repeal. Boy, you know, John McCain looks smarter every day. Labels: Democrats, Iraq War, John McCain
Monday, February 05, 2007
McCain to Dems (and Hagel): Stop Demoralizing the Troops!John stands up for what's right: On the eve before a possible congressional showdown on Iraq strategy, Senator McCain of Arizona contended that the bipartisan proposal amounted to a demoralizing "vote of no confidence" in the American military. The measure, he said, criticizes Mr. Bush's plan to add 21,500 troops in Iraq yet offers no concrete alternatives.
"I don't think it's appropriate to say that you disapprove of a mission and you don't want to fund it and you don't want it to go, but yet you don't take the action necessary to prevent it," Mr. McCain, who is a 2008 presidential candidate, said. Labels: Democrats, Iraq War, McCain
|
|
