Well, the election results are in, and you all know how they turned out, I'm sure. (All one of you.) (Hi, dad!) I'm still sifting through the articles and trying to get a sense of the subtleties of what happened.
I Was Right, After All
The thing that surprised me before the primaries was that the polls were showing that Romney and Obama had leads in California, the exact opposite of what I had been expecting. My expectation had been that the California Republicrats would break heavily towards McCain, and that Hillary Clinton's connection with Latino voters, Unions, and community organizers in this state would play to her favor. The polls were showing that the opposite was true -- Obama and Romney were pulling ahead. And while I could understand more or less why that might be, it surprised me.
Well, turns out I shouldn't have doubted my judgment, because the dust has cleared, and it turned out I was right all along.
Obama Stays in the Race
While McCain has solidified his lead among the republicans, the democratic fight soldiers on, still too close to call. Obama didn't manage to leave Hillary in the dust (no one expected that he would), but he did manage to stay in the race. This works to his advantage, because his principle problem thusfar has been that 90% of voters don't give a crap about politics, and don't even know who he is in more than the vaguest terms, whereas they know all about Hillary Clinton. Since Obama's charisma is such an important part of his candidacy, he needs people to get to know him and see him in action to get their support. With all of the primaries on Super Tuesday, he hasn't had time to do that. But now, with the rest of the primaries more spread out, he's going to have time, and that's going to help him build support. Even so, there's every chance that we might wind up with a brokered convention, and that's going to hurt whoever comes out of the fray still standing.
Where In the World Is Bill Richardson?
Leading up to Super Tuesday, I was hearing a lot of baffling speculation that Bill Richardson was going to endorse Barack Obama. When Obama went to make the rounds in New Mexico, a lot of people were saying that Richardson was going to make an appearance and take the chance to make his endorsement. I started searching news sites for some indication of what I must have missed -- why the hell should anyone believe this? All of Richardson's ties are to the Clintons. He worked for Bill Clinton, for crying out loud. Bill Clinton practically MADE him. They watched the superbowl together!
But Richardson didn't endorse Hillary Clinton either, and let's face it, if he was gonna do it, he was gonna do it before Super Tuesday. I'm pretty sure that, like Edwards, he's expecting that there's a good chance that he'll be tapped by SOMEONE for the VP spot on a ticket. Since the race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama looks too close to call, and since an endorsement of the losing party would rule him out of getting jack from whoever gets the nomination, I think he'll sit on the fence until the victor has already been anointed -- or until he can have a good chance at anointing the victor with his endorsement. Of course, he doesn't have anything by way of delegates to contribute, but he may be counting on his popularity with Latino voters.
In fact, Richardson would be a good running mate for Barack Obama. He's not very charismatic, but Obama's got enough charisma to make up for ten Bill Richardsons, never mind one. Obama's weakest areas seem to be the established democrats, Latino voters, and his inexperience, especially with regards to foreign policy -- all things that Richardson could make up for. Obama could dispatch Richardson, as VP, to do most of the foreign policy negotiations, and Richardson has already proven that not only does he have the contacts to be effective, he IS effective.
I prefer not to think about the possibility of a Clinton/Richardson ticket. The cognitive dissonance hurts my brain. I would desperately like to see Richardson in power, because he seems to know what he's doing, even if I don't agree with every single one of his policy opinions. But I cannot, absolutely cannot, bring myself to vote for Hillary Clinton. The idea of rewarding her behavior with my vote is repugnant to me. I have no idea what I'd do.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Handicapping the race
I'm writing this on February 5th, "Super Tuesday". It's well before the polls close today, so I don't know what's going to happen. I feel a sense of anticipation coiling inside me, something tight and humming with pent up energy. I haven't been this excited about an election in years -- not since Bill Clinton ran his first time, and I was really young then and inclined towards getting excited about things.
Looking at the news, it looks like Huckabee has already nailed West Virginia, a hint that the bible belt might breathe some life into his campaign. McCain voters switched to him to keep Romney from winning. If this is a bellweather of things to come, it's very, very bad for Romney. Polls show Obama leading Clinton in California, which is good for Obama, especially since it's tight everywhere else.
Of course, these are just polls, and who knows how accurate they will be? I think that this year, more than any year in my lifetime, anything could happen.
Split Down the Middle
To distract myself from the pre-results jitters, I thought I'd elaborate on what I mentioned yesterday about handicapping the race. I don't think anyone can dispute that the Democratic and Republican sides each have two possible nominees. (Huckabee is making himself a contender, but he doesn't have a chance at the nomination -- too many Republicans realize that a guy who doesn't believe in evolution is never going to win the general election.) What's interesting, though, is how different these candidates are from each other, and the way that each pair divide their respective parties passionately in half.
On the Democratic side, you've got the idealists represented by Barack Obama. Many of these are young people who've never voted before because they grew up with no faith in the system, and no sense that their opinion mattered. Barack Obama has given them faith, and they're coming to his rallies and -- amazingly -- following through and coming to the polls. Hillary Clinton's followers include entrenched aspects of the party who are looking to preserve established interests. Many of these people are powerful party and union leaders and community organizers who can get a lot of people to the polls, though Ted Kennedy's defection over to Obama's side seems to be eroding that base.
On the Republican side, Mitt Romney represents the hardcore conservatives of the party. He puts focus on family values and immigration, and has instilled in people confidence in his financial abilities -- which is of no small importance, given the crumbling economy. John McCain, on the other hand, represents the moderates. He's more critical of the war in Iraq -- or the way it's being handled -- and he's come out strongly against waterboarding and other forms of torture. He projects the image of having broken with the loony warmongers, and gives a voice to the dissatisfaction and disenfranchisement that moderate Republicans have been feeling.
What the split in the parties means is that no matter who gets the nomination, half of the Democrats and half of the Republicans are going to be pissed the hell off, and the degree to which they are angry is going to have a lot to do with how the general election turns out; if a substantial part of one party is too disgusted to vote, or even worse defects to the other side, then the other party is certain to win.
How It Will Break Down
1) Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain: This one goes to McCain by a substantial margin. Hillary Clinton can't count on the support of the young people who voted for Obama; their candidate losing despite their involvement will drive them further away from the process. She also can't count on Democrats like me, who usually vote but who are so turned off by her methods that we'll find ourselves unable to hold our noses and vote for her. In the meantime, she's going to unite the Republicans against her, because nothing riles up the hardcore conservatives like Hillary Clinton. Regardless of how they may feel about McCain, they will turn out to the polls to keep Clinton out, the same way that McCain's supporters went to Huckabee in order to thwart Romney. In the meantime, McCain will pull in the independents and the undecideds, who have shown a penchant towards voting for him in the primaries.
2) Barack Obama vs. John McCain: This one could break either way, depending on how the campaigns are run. My instinct is that it goes to Obama. With Obama running, McCain won't have total control of the independents, arguably his greatest asset, and there will be no collective hatred of Hillary Clinton to bring the conservatives together -- which means that a lot of evangelicals will stay home. In the meantime, the Democrats will get behind Obama, not in the least because of the Kennedy clan's influence pushing them in line. Even more young voters than voted in the primaries will come to the polls; Obama's win, his message of looking to the future, and the real possibility of him being elected president will electrify and empower my generation.
3) Hillary Clinton vs. Mitt Romney: This one will be closer than Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain, but Romney still manages to win the general election. The threat of Hillary Clinton allows Romney to 'run to the center' without losing the support of the far right, so that he doesn't alienate McCain's supporters. But what really clinches it for Romney is that he'll get the independent voters over to his side because of his clean image and infectious optimism. If you listen to him speak, he projects a sense of 'don't you worry, I'll take care of everything, everything's going to be all right.' that's flat-out entrancing. Rationally, I know that he's my ideological opposite in every way, but when he hits me with the full force of his benevolent patriarchy, I start to believe him. It's completely irrational, but I just want to let him protect me. People call him too polished, but when he's contrasted with Hillary Clinton and her alternately stone cold and weepy image, he's going to look like the less calculating of the two, and 'polished' is going to turn into 'presidential' in the eyes of many voters.
4) Barack Obama vs. Mitt Romney: It'd depend on how the campaign is run and if anyone does anything stupid, but I'm pretty sure that Obama wins this one. Mitt Romney's charisma is nothing to Barack Obama's; he'd look so robotic next to Obama that comedians would be able to dust off their old Al Gore jokes. In addition, the far ends of the Republican party on both sides (the far right conservatives and the moderates) would be unlikely to turn up at the polls -- some of them might even defect over to Obama -- and Obama would capture the independents. Obama has a better chance than Hillary Clinton of uniting the democrats behind him, and his army of young voters would turn up to boost him further.
Third Party Contenders
There are several complicating factors, however, in the form of possible third party candidates. These include:
Ralph Nader. He's going to run. His ego demands it. But I don't think he's going to be a force in this election the way he was in 2000; I've talked to many people who voted for him in the past, and many of them tell me that they bitterly regret it. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, he might get a few democratic defectors, but he pulls his support from the left, and he has no chance against Obama. I predict a weak showing.
Ron Paul. He's said he won't run as a third party candidate if he doesn't get the nomination, but with the kind of money that he's been bringing in (he was the top fundraising Republican in the last quarter of 2007!) and with the rabid support of his followers egging him on, I'm not sure he'll be able to resist the temptation. And speaking of that money, how the hell is he not buying stronger support with all of that cash?! I know he's a crazy person, but we've elected crazy people before.
Michael Bloomburg. A lot of people think he'll make a go at it, but if he's got two neurons to knock together, he'll only do it if the matchup is Hillary Clinton vs. Mitt Romney. Bloomburg is seen as a centerist, and he'll do best if there are divisive members of both parties running. In a situation like that, he'd be able to pull a lot of independents and dissatisfied members of both parties over to his side. With his money and good reputation, he'd do pretty well. I doubt he'd win, but with this election? Never say never. Crazier things are happening.
Edwards the Kingmaker?
The last wrench to be thrown into the wheels of the campaign is John Edwards' delegates. He's got 26 under his belt, and he's probably going to pick up one or two more today from absentee voters. My father, for example, voted for him before he dropped out. (Dad -- you should have listened to me and voted for Obama.)
Those 26 delegates could decide the race if it gets close enough, and therein lies the question -- who gets them? Whoever Edwards endorses will get his delegates. A lot of people predicted that Edwards would endorse someone before February 5th to give them an added bump of momentum and make himself into a kingmaker, but he didn't. And here's why: Edwards is gambling that, come convention time, the race will be close enough for his delegates to crown the winner. If this happens, he's in an amazing bargaining position, and his delegates will go to whoever agrees to put him on the ticket as their vice-presidential candidate. Hillary Clinton will be the person most willing to cut this deal; she has already shown that she will do anything to win.
If Obama manages to pull a clear lead over Hillary Clinton, far enough that Edwards' delegates won't make a difference, he'll give them over to Obama, however, VP slot or no.
Huckabee is in essentially the same position as Edwards, but I don't know what he's going to do with his delegates.
Okay, that's it for now. The only thing that I have left to say to you is that if you're reading this on one of your state's primary days, get out there and VOTE! :)
Looking at the news, it looks like Huckabee has already nailed West Virginia, a hint that the bible belt might breathe some life into his campaign. McCain voters switched to him to keep Romney from winning. If this is a bellweather of things to come, it's very, very bad for Romney. Polls show Obama leading Clinton in California, which is good for Obama, especially since it's tight everywhere else.
Of course, these are just polls, and who knows how accurate they will be? I think that this year, more than any year in my lifetime, anything could happen.
Split Down the Middle
To distract myself from the pre-results jitters, I thought I'd elaborate on what I mentioned yesterday about handicapping the race. I don't think anyone can dispute that the Democratic and Republican sides each have two possible nominees. (Huckabee is making himself a contender, but he doesn't have a chance at the nomination -- too many Republicans realize that a guy who doesn't believe in evolution is never going to win the general election.) What's interesting, though, is how different these candidates are from each other, and the way that each pair divide their respective parties passionately in half.
On the Democratic side, you've got the idealists represented by Barack Obama. Many of these are young people who've never voted before because they grew up with no faith in the system, and no sense that their opinion mattered. Barack Obama has given them faith, and they're coming to his rallies and -- amazingly -- following through and coming to the polls. Hillary Clinton's followers include entrenched aspects of the party who are looking to preserve established interests. Many of these people are powerful party and union leaders and community organizers who can get a lot of people to the polls, though Ted Kennedy's defection over to Obama's side seems to be eroding that base.
On the Republican side, Mitt Romney represents the hardcore conservatives of the party. He puts focus on family values and immigration, and has instilled in people confidence in his financial abilities -- which is of no small importance, given the crumbling economy. John McCain, on the other hand, represents the moderates. He's more critical of the war in Iraq -- or the way it's being handled -- and he's come out strongly against waterboarding and other forms of torture. He projects the image of having broken with the loony warmongers, and gives a voice to the dissatisfaction and disenfranchisement that moderate Republicans have been feeling.
What the split in the parties means is that no matter who gets the nomination, half of the Democrats and half of the Republicans are going to be pissed the hell off, and the degree to which they are angry is going to have a lot to do with how the general election turns out; if a substantial part of one party is too disgusted to vote, or even worse defects to the other side, then the other party is certain to win.
How It Will Break Down
1) Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain: This one goes to McCain by a substantial margin. Hillary Clinton can't count on the support of the young people who voted for Obama; their candidate losing despite their involvement will drive them further away from the process. She also can't count on Democrats like me, who usually vote but who are so turned off by her methods that we'll find ourselves unable to hold our noses and vote for her. In the meantime, she's going to unite the Republicans against her, because nothing riles up the hardcore conservatives like Hillary Clinton. Regardless of how they may feel about McCain, they will turn out to the polls to keep Clinton out, the same way that McCain's supporters went to Huckabee in order to thwart Romney. In the meantime, McCain will pull in the independents and the undecideds, who have shown a penchant towards voting for him in the primaries.
2) Barack Obama vs. John McCain: This one could break either way, depending on how the campaigns are run. My instinct is that it goes to Obama. With Obama running, McCain won't have total control of the independents, arguably his greatest asset, and there will be no collective hatred of Hillary Clinton to bring the conservatives together -- which means that a lot of evangelicals will stay home. In the meantime, the Democrats will get behind Obama, not in the least because of the Kennedy clan's influence pushing them in line. Even more young voters than voted in the primaries will come to the polls; Obama's win, his message of looking to the future, and the real possibility of him being elected president will electrify and empower my generation.
3) Hillary Clinton vs. Mitt Romney: This one will be closer than Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain, but Romney still manages to win the general election. The threat of Hillary Clinton allows Romney to 'run to the center' without losing the support of the far right, so that he doesn't alienate McCain's supporters. But what really clinches it for Romney is that he'll get the independent voters over to his side because of his clean image and infectious optimism. If you listen to him speak, he projects a sense of 'don't you worry, I'll take care of everything, everything's going to be all right.' that's flat-out entrancing. Rationally, I know that he's my ideological opposite in every way, but when he hits me with the full force of his benevolent patriarchy, I start to believe him. It's completely irrational, but I just want to let him protect me. People call him too polished, but when he's contrasted with Hillary Clinton and her alternately stone cold and weepy image, he's going to look like the less calculating of the two, and 'polished' is going to turn into 'presidential' in the eyes of many voters.
4) Barack Obama vs. Mitt Romney: It'd depend on how the campaign is run and if anyone does anything stupid, but I'm pretty sure that Obama wins this one. Mitt Romney's charisma is nothing to Barack Obama's; he'd look so robotic next to Obama that comedians would be able to dust off their old Al Gore jokes. In addition, the far ends of the Republican party on both sides (the far right conservatives and the moderates) would be unlikely to turn up at the polls -- some of them might even defect over to Obama -- and Obama would capture the independents. Obama has a better chance than Hillary Clinton of uniting the democrats behind him, and his army of young voters would turn up to boost him further.
Third Party Contenders
There are several complicating factors, however, in the form of possible third party candidates. These include:
Ralph Nader. He's going to run. His ego demands it. But I don't think he's going to be a force in this election the way he was in 2000; I've talked to many people who voted for him in the past, and many of them tell me that they bitterly regret it. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, he might get a few democratic defectors, but he pulls his support from the left, and he has no chance against Obama. I predict a weak showing.
Ron Paul. He's said he won't run as a third party candidate if he doesn't get the nomination, but with the kind of money that he's been bringing in (he was the top fundraising Republican in the last quarter of 2007!) and with the rabid support of his followers egging him on, I'm not sure he'll be able to resist the temptation. And speaking of that money, how the hell is he not buying stronger support with all of that cash?! I know he's a crazy person, but we've elected crazy people before.
Michael Bloomburg. A lot of people think he'll make a go at it, but if he's got two neurons to knock together, he'll only do it if the matchup is Hillary Clinton vs. Mitt Romney. Bloomburg is seen as a centerist, and he'll do best if there are divisive members of both parties running. In a situation like that, he'd be able to pull a lot of independents and dissatisfied members of both parties over to his side. With his money and good reputation, he'd do pretty well. I doubt he'd win, but with this election? Never say never. Crazier things are happening.
Edwards the Kingmaker?
The last wrench to be thrown into the wheels of the campaign is John Edwards' delegates. He's got 26 under his belt, and he's probably going to pick up one or two more today from absentee voters. My father, for example, voted for him before he dropped out. (Dad -- you should have listened to me and voted for Obama.)
Those 26 delegates could decide the race if it gets close enough, and therein lies the question -- who gets them? Whoever Edwards endorses will get his delegates. A lot of people predicted that Edwards would endorse someone before February 5th to give them an added bump of momentum and make himself into a kingmaker, but he didn't. And here's why: Edwards is gambling that, come convention time, the race will be close enough for his delegates to crown the winner. If this happens, he's in an amazing bargaining position, and his delegates will go to whoever agrees to put him on the ticket as their vice-presidential candidate. Hillary Clinton will be the person most willing to cut this deal; she has already shown that she will do anything to win.
If Obama manages to pull a clear lead over Hillary Clinton, far enough that Edwards' delegates won't make a difference, he'll give them over to Obama, however, VP slot or no.
Huckabee is in essentially the same position as Edwards, but I don't know what he's going to do with his delegates.
Okay, that's it for now. The only thing that I have left to say to you is that if you're reading this on one of your state's primary days, get out there and VOTE! :)
Monday, February 4, 2008
First Post!
So my father told me today that I need to start a political blog. I was giving him a long and drawn out handicapping of various democratic vs. republican candidates, come November. I'm pretty decent at working these things out -- I predicted a long time ago, back when Guliani was considered the Republican frontrunner -- that it was going to come down the Ronmey vs. some dark horse candidate who was going to come out of nowhere at the very last minute. I wouldn't have guessed John McCain, because his campaign was such an awful mess, but I guess he got it together in the end.
Instead of rambling on and on about politics today, though, I think I'll tell you about myself.
I enjoy reading the news online, but I recently switched from CNN to Reuters. I had been spending a couple of weeks making a sport of figuring out how many stories on CNN were actually news stories, rather than recreational outrage, fuzzy feel good stories, or stupid human interest. What I discovered was that most of what was reported wasn't news, and the news was reported only briefly. So out of disgust, I switched. I like Reuters better; I don't have to read 'oddly enough' if I don't want to. (I don't.) The only other place that I get my news is from the Daily Show. I don't actually have cable, but I watch the clips posted online every day. In my opinion, it's the only remotely worthwhile news show on TV right now.
I also follow the Straight Dope message boards, although I don't post there. I've learned a lot about politics, finance, and life from the people who post there, all of them intelligent and coming from very different walks of life. Many of my posts will probably be linking back there, or at least inspired by something that I read over there.
I have two cats, Cordelia the ruler of the house and don't you forget it, and don Francisco, the flirty lover of women. (He once crawled up under a friend's shirt.) I am a crazy cat lady, but I'll try not to assault you with too much about them.
Though I will be talking about the Republican race and the Republican party often in a very even handed tone, know that I'm not a moderate -- I'm a liberal, and damn proud of it. But I believe in knowing thy enemy, and taking a crazy, heavily biased perspective or painting things in good and bad, black and white isn't helpful and has, frankly, been a large part of why our party has been doing so poorly these last few years.
I'm also a feminist, although I prefer to approach feminism by rooting out the symbols and themes about what a woman is and should be that have been integrated into our society since the middle ages that oppress women (in my opinion) more than any misogynist ever can. Like the child pointing out that the Emperor is not wearing any clothes, I try to find these symbols wherever they may hide, hold them up, and say 'bullshit'.
So there you go. I'll try and post regularly; I have a lot to say, but I'm also very lazy.
Instead of rambling on and on about politics today, though, I think I'll tell you about myself.
I enjoy reading the news online, but I recently switched from CNN to Reuters. I had been spending a couple of weeks making a sport of figuring out how many stories on CNN were actually news stories, rather than recreational outrage, fuzzy feel good stories, or stupid human interest. What I discovered was that most of what was reported wasn't news, and the news was reported only briefly. So out of disgust, I switched. I like Reuters better; I don't have to read 'oddly enough' if I don't want to. (I don't.) The only other place that I get my news is from the Daily Show. I don't actually have cable, but I watch the clips posted online every day. In my opinion, it's the only remotely worthwhile news show on TV right now.
I also follow the Straight Dope message boards, although I don't post there. I've learned a lot about politics, finance, and life from the people who post there, all of them intelligent and coming from very different walks of life. Many of my posts will probably be linking back there, or at least inspired by something that I read over there.
I have two cats, Cordelia the ruler of the house and don't you forget it, and don Francisco, the flirty lover of women. (He once crawled up under a friend's shirt.) I am a crazy cat lady, but I'll try not to assault you with too much about them.
Though I will be talking about the Republican race and the Republican party often in a very even handed tone, know that I'm not a moderate -- I'm a liberal, and damn proud of it. But I believe in knowing thy enemy, and taking a crazy, heavily biased perspective or painting things in good and bad, black and white isn't helpful and has, frankly, been a large part of why our party has been doing so poorly these last few years.
I'm also a feminist, although I prefer to approach feminism by rooting out the symbols and themes about what a woman is and should be that have been integrated into our society since the middle ages that oppress women (in my opinion) more than any misogynist ever can. Like the child pointing out that the Emperor is not wearing any clothes, I try to find these symbols wherever they may hide, hold them up, and say 'bullshit'.
So there you go. I'll try and post regularly; I have a lot to say, but I'm also very lazy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
