The Politics of Dismissal
Hillary and her merry band of complainers are at it again, this time unloading all of their complaints about the Democratic nomination process into one helpful email sent out by a Hillary super-delegate.
First up, why caucuses don't matter:
Should caucuses, in which citizens who wish to express their choice are obliged to either show up at an appointed hour and sit in a room for up to several hours or not show up at all, be regarded as reflecting the popular will as much as primaries, where voters whose lives do not permit them to spend three hours in a locked room at the end of a workday can simply go into their local elementary school, vote and leave--like voters across the country do on the first Tuesday in November?
I find the argument against caucuses most interesting, because Camp Hillary is so forceful in promoting the role of "superdelegates" to decide this nomination. In caucuses, the most active, engaged, and informed Democrats go out to make their choice known...which is essentially what Camp Hillary is saying the supers should do.
Then of course there is the old, Red states don't matter, only Blue states do argument:
Should the results in states that have rarely if ever voted Democratic in a presidential election over the last half century be accorded the same weight as the results in large states that form the heart of the Democratic base, and which the Democratic presidential nominee must carry in order to win the White House?
Short answer: Hell fucking yes they should count. But the thing is, they aren't accorded the same weight as Democratic bastions. The delegates are apportioned to the states based on a formula which takes into account the number of votes the Democratic presidential contender got in the past three Presidential elections. That is why in California, there is one delegate for every 99K people, compared to one delegate for every 124K people in Texas. And to further confound the allocations, states that moved their primaries up from January, February or March in 2004, to April, May, or June of this year, get a bonus delegate allocation.
And finally, only "registered Dems" should count:
Should primaries in which voters who are not in fact members of the Democratic party voted in significant numbers be given the same standing for the purpose of choosing the Democratic party nominee as those in which only Democrats voted?
Well, considering Hillary likes to promote her Tennessee win, and Tennessee doesn't have party registration, I'd say yes. But here is the thing, I know of many liberals who claim an "independent" status because they don't like the idea of being tied down to one party. Just as I know of some conservatives who vote Republican in the General, but claim a Democratic affiliation because their grand-daddy was a Democrat. Simply because someone doesn't register as a Democrat, doesn't mean they don't share the same values of many of the democrats in office; likewise, many who are registered dems...do not.
Ultimately, I find it odd that we should be conceding every state that Kerry didn't win in 2004, sans Florida and Ohio. This 272 electoral vote strategy is just a recipe for an election night disaster. I'd rather have a candidate who is at least willing to try and win in every state, even if the odds are stacked against them.
10 comments:
I will say the arguement against caucuses holds water, a little late in the game to be making it, but its valid. having participated in caucuses here to select delagates it has becoming incredibly apparent what an unfair proposition it is. they encourage a herd mentality and it would be impossible for core Clinton supporters to participate. I know you tend to discount the concerns of working class folks, but the truth is they just don't have the time to spend walking from one end of the room to another. Look at wyoming this week-end. we are talking record numbers participating and the count was what...9000. caucuses need to go.
TC,
Working class folks generally have Saturdays off...now, perhaps these were all wine swilling elites who caucused in Big Horn and other areas of Wyoming...somehow I doubt it though.
Regardless, Hillary did better in this caucus than she might have if she hadn't changed her strategy which was to write off every state that she might now in a majority of votes in.
Instead of complaining about the rules in the 4th quarter, maybe she should've done what Obama did, and just played by the rules that were established before the game began. Obama's delegate lead might be significantly smaller if she had just worked harder in both primary and caucus states that she wasn't favored to win.
This is why Hillary Clinton will ultimately bring down the Democratic Party if she's the nominee. She does not care one bit about building up the party or pursuing a 50-state strategy. She's just following the John Kerry strategy. Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?
But it's ok Sean, you matter because you're from Ohio.
Sure Saturdays...just get a sitter and head on over to caucuses. It just amazes me the lack of sensitivity thats shown towards working class concerns. You sure your not a Republican? Now remember I coseaded that complaining in the fouth quarter was a little ridiculous, but you can't support the continued use of caucuses. Wine swilling or not, I thought there were more then 9000 people in Wyoming. You also fail to address the fact that his crowd is always going to be more "hip" and "attractive", caucuses bring out that herd mentality. Again, give me one good reason why they still exist, other then "It's the rules"
9000 Democrats in Wyoming is a huge turnout for them.
And I still have yet to see any proof that Obama supporters don't work and don't have jobs, that they just sit on their asses all day.
Goldni,
I also matter because I'm white and "working class," but then again, I'm young, so I don't matter...I'm confused.
TC,
Caucuses exist primarily because in many states the Parties have to pay for their contests, and some of the smaller states can't really afford to do a primary.
Why does DC, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, etc...get a say in this contest when they don't get to vote for the President?
There are many things that are "unfair" about the nominating procedure, and I have long called for regional super-primaries to alleviate the problems associated with it...but it is what it is, and if you want to argue that there should be more uniformity in the rules, I might get on board; but if you want to make this a class based argument, then I can't be down with that.
Obama often does better with middle-aged married women with kids, whereas Hillary often does better with senior women and single-working women...your argument, that Hillary's voters are disenfranchised, doesn't really hold much water.
Shocking!
Hillary Clinton’s campaign advisor, Mark Penn, borrows ANOTHER Republican Attack on Barack Obama—he’s “the most Liberal Senator”!!
From Mark Penn in the New Yorker:
“Independent and Republican support is diminishing as they find out he’s the most liberal Democratic senator… As they get more of a sense that he’s not ready to be Commander-in-Chief, a lot of Independents who were supporting him are disappearing.”
So much for the TN Guerilla Women’s arguments that Hillary is the “liberal” candidate!
(Since I've been banned from TGW's blog, could someone pass this along :)
Happy to oblige.
http://goldni.blogspot.com/2008/03/make-up-your-minds.html
Whoa whoa nobody said anything about disenfranchised. i'm also not the one who made up the statistics that Hillary does better overwelmingly with people who make under 50,000. Obama does better overwelmingly with those who make over $50,000. That has been widely reported, ridicule it all you want but the numbers are the numbers. I'm not calling this system unfair just because I'm a hilary supporter, its unfair because its archaic. 9000 in Wyoming is considered good? What would the turn out be if it was a normal primary? Also please explain to me why you can embrace a race arguement but seem to be incapable of grasping a class arguement?
TC,
I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that Hillary Clinton does better amongst poor whites East of the Mississippi. What I'm not ready to concede is the idea that poor people are cutout from a caucus system. Are some? Sure, but there are probably some wealthy people out of town on business trips or who have to work late, who aren't able to make it either.
Not to mention, not all caucuses are the same. Some allow you to walk in, sign a piece of paper, and leave. Some allow for absentee ballots. Really, the only definable difference between a caucus and a primary is that the caucus is run by the party, the primary is run by the State.
Post a Comment