In my hometown election, the three incumbents had, combined, 36 years entrenched in office; in the prior election, they had run unopposed. Unexpectedly, the voters sent them packing. I am always pleasantly surprised when our democracy actually seems to work.
"Landslide" is a euphemism to describe Hillary Clinton's lopsided trouncing of Barack Obama in the West Virginia Democratic primary. But Hillary is the trailing candidate, extremely unlikely to become her party's nominee; and many previous contests had been squeakers. So why the West Virginia anomaly? Did West Virginians know or see something in Hillary that a plurality of other Democrats had not? Or could it have been because West Virginia is our Whitest state? I am always discouraged when our democracy seems not to work.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Welcome to Telltale Droppings! ("Truth is an elusive quarry; one must be on constant lookout for telltale droppings.") I look forward to your participation and eagerly anticipate a spirited conversation. Stop by for a visit every now and then, share your thoughts, tell your friends!
Technorati
BlogCatalog
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(439)
-
▼
May
(25)
- Discovery or Dyspepsia?
- Birth control is antithetical to Catholic dogma no...
- Trump Farms
- Roosting Raptors
- Beating Tomtoms Around Bonfires
- Heaven
- Ebony and Ivory
- As a new Blogger, I feel like Lana Turner at Woolw...
- Of Thee I Sing III
- Of Thee I Sing II
- In Memorium
- Of Thee I Sing
- Because The Bible Tells Me So
- Intelligent Design?
- Righteousness
- Red v Blue
- Realpolitik
- Buy American!
- Get REAL!
- Bang, you're dead!
- Uncommon Sense ...
- Why Do I Call Myself A Rationalist?
- Political "Experience"
- In my hometown election, the three incumbents had,...
- Opening Day Preview!
-
▼
May
(25)
About Me
- johngalt
- I am a retired physician. I now spend much of my time observing the passing scene and cogitating about matters that intrigue, concern, or amuse me.
2 comments:
Re "entrenched" incumbents, I am of two minds on this. On the one hand, entrenchment can create stagnation. On the other, it can keep a good person in office, doing good things for their constituency. That is, it would seem to depend on whether the entrenched person is actually WORKING for their constituency, nd doing a good job for them. If they are, why should they necessarily be voted out of office?
Re Hillary and WV, if one is going to consider her victory a matter of "race," why, then, is not Obama's NC victory a matter of race, since he won 96% of the black vote? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
As well, there are some other factors at play here that are being overlooked.
First, had the Democratic Party (like the Republican Party) remained on a "winner-take-all" primary delegate system, Hillary would have clinched the nomination after Super Tuesday - even without Florida and Michigan. Yet the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan - which was a result of "party rules" and NOT anything the voters themselves did - has also wrongly adversely affected the primary race: Hillary would certainly have won Florida, and probably Michigan, thus increasing her pledged delegates versus Obama, and cutting his popular vote lead to almost nothing.
It is also instructive to note that in some states where Obama won (e.g., Missouri), and some in which he lost but did okay (i.e., Pennsylvania, Indiana), Hillary actually won the overwhelming majority of districts in each state; i.e., Obama obtained ALL of his votes in big cities with large black populations and/or college campuses. Indeed, in Missouri, where he won by a single percentage point, Hillary won 108 out of 116 districts; Obama only carried the state because of the black vote in St. Louis, Kansas City and Jefferson City, and the college vote from five major universities.
As well, the states that Hillary has won represent far more electoral college votes (256) than those won by Obama (217). And while this is not a perfect measure (after all, NY and CA will almost certainly vote Democratic no matter who the candidate is), it is, again, instructive, since the electoral college is, for better or worse, the ultimate arbiter of who wins a presidential election.
Finally, there are the superdelegates, who seem not to understand why they were created. The superdelegate system was NOT created simply to ratify "the math" (pledged delegates and/or popular vote). Indeed, if that was their sole purpose, we would not need them at all, since, at the end of the day, "the math" is what it is; it needs no ratification.
Rather, the superdelegates were created to consider factors IN ADDITION TO the math, particularly when two candidates are as close as Hillary and Obama are. Some of these factors include "coat-tails" (i.e., "sweeping" other Democrats into office in their wake), who is more likely to survive a blistering general election campaign, and, of course, who is more likely to beat the Republican opponent.
Re "coat-tails," both candidates are probably even here. Re a general election campaign, Obama is FAR less tested than Hillary is, and has far more CURRENT "baggage" than Hillary has. One comment Hillary has made that one simply cannot argue with is that the right wing has thrown everything it can at her - yet she is still standing as a respected, even admired senator. As well, Obama has bristled at virtually every "slight" or perceived slight from his opponent in the primary race. Given that these slights are NOTHING compared to what the right wing is likely to throw at him, he does not seem ready for a withering, blistering general election campaign.
Re beating McCain, the most recent polls - almost across the board - show that Hillary is gaining strength against him, while Obama's numbers have been slipping.
Neither candidate is a saint. Both are "politicians" (Obama's claims to the contrary notwithstanding). Both have baggage. Their positions on most major issues (Iraq, Iran, China, health care, economy, climate change et al) differ only in the details. Their voting records in the Senate were identical 94% of the time, on every conceivable issue.
Thus, there is little difference between them in most regards. However, Obama never even completed a full term as a U.S. Senator; indeed, not only did he begin running for president less than two years after he was elected, but he reneged on his promise to his constituents that he would NOT run for president until he had served out a full term.
Hillary, on the other hand, had a full term (and a half) as a Senator before declaring her candidacy (and she made the same promise to HER constituents - and kept it). So for all the criticism that Hillary received for touting her comparative "experience," that experience IS an important (though not deciding) factor here.
I will support whoever is the Democratic nominee. But I firmly believe that Hillary would make the better president.
Peace.
Ian--
Re: incumbency, I am a devotee of Lord Acton---incumbency breeds corruption! (and I endorse Lamaar Alexander's bumper-sticker wisdom from his own unsuccessful presidential bid, "Cut their pay and send them home!")
Re: the rest, that's why there's Cherry Garcia and Chunky Monkey! You and I view the same REALITY but see different Realites. So be it.
Post a Comment