One thing that has struck me recently is the volatility of the McCain campaign. I'm not referencing Obama's attempts to paint McCain as "erratic" so much as the actions of McCain's own campaign which have contributed toward that perception.
The timeline here is of great importance. After the primaries ended both campaigns largely coasted with a few spikes of interest here and there. Both were roughly even, with a slight popular vote advantage to Obama. One can easily recall the subtle nervousness of the Democrats, and the tempered jubilation of the Republicans. Everyone had thought that Obama would be coasting to an easy win, but McCain was clearly challenging that assumption, particularly when, following the conventions, he took the lead over Obama.
The conventions were the most important events in this election, moreso than Reverend Wright, the debates or even the economic crisis. They set the stage for everything that was to follow, from message to methodology for each campaign.
Obama played safe with his running mate choice and has effectively been following that pattern ever since. Even when his party was in a state of panic following McCain's rise in the polls he held steady. Even in recent weeks when his party has seen opportunities for him to land crucial knockout punches, he abstains rather than risk losing balance. This strategy is unflinching in its disregard for criticism, although it's terribly boring and almost disappointing.
McCain took a large risk with his running mate, and has been taking big risks ever since. These gambles have often failed to pay off, resulting in the necessity to step back and thus create mixed messages. The obvious cases being the suspension of his campaign and subsequent showing up at the debate anyway, the Ayers attacks followed by stepping back from that rhetoric, and his recent back and forth as to whether he was actually going to make a statement of economic policy or not. This presents evidence for Obama's case that McCain is "erratic".
What many fail to recognize is that we've been here before; it was only earlier this year that Hillary Clinton experienced a similar period in her campaign. When her message of experience lost traction she began seeking a new track to follow. Unfortunately, she went through numerous messages trying to find one that would stick. The constantly changing messages on her podium drew a stark contrast to the ironically unchanging slogans of Obama. Even when she "found her voice" there were aftershocks of the "erratic" behavior, such as the comments about the potential for assassination.
The most striking part of the parallel is in the advice given to Clinton and McCain. Much as the Republicans are now for McCain, the Democrats and advisers at the time gave Clinton vastly disparate advice on how to take down Obama. It's an environment designed to foster disaster. Disaster is what we've seen. A well oiled campaign does not release a statement, double back on it, and then double back again. McCain's campaign has done this not just several times, but many times. More than anything else this hurts his campaign in the eyes of the most important voters at this stage, the undecided independents.
Clinton eventually grounded herself and moved on to thoroughly challenge Obama, but when she found her footing she had a good two months or more left to fight. McCain is down to three weeks with which to find balance, plant his feet and turn the election around. His last opportunity may be tomorrow's debate, after which it may be all but settled. A solid message to stand upon is required for McCain to win this election; If he fails to find consistency at the debate, his chances at establishing it thereafter are slim to none.
Showing posts with label Hillary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary. Show all posts
20081014
20080610
Shameless Ignorance
Normally I like to think of myself as a gentle, diplomatic person who tries to bridge gaps and break down communication barriers. To that effect, I generally avoid throwing around names, blame and anything similarly antagonizing wherever I can.
Not today.
A week ago a common catchphrase was "If Hillary doesn't win I'll vote for McCain". Today it's "If Hillary doesn't get the VP slot I'll vote for McCain" when it isn't "Because Hillary lost I'm voting McCain". I have a brief message for all the people expressing these notions.
You're idiots.
This is not because voting for McCain is idiotic per se, but because the implicit motivations for doing so are. None of the people I've seen making a big deal about voting for McCain in place of Hillary are doing so over policy or presidential potential.
I have plenty of Republican and moderate friends who can and will make an excellent case for voting for McCain over Obama. One of the reasons they will not give is "because I'm whiny over Hillary losing". That's a ridiculously stupid motivation, and it's equally disrespectful to all of the candidates involves.
You might dispute that this is the reason you're declaring that you'd never vote for Obama, but if that's the case back it up. Put some bite behind your bark because otherwise you look like a political idiot. Obama's policies and positions are too similar to Hillary's for people to assume you know what you're talking about when you leave it at "Obama sucks, I'm voting McCain".
There are bound to be people who are switching from Hillary to McCain with a sane mind and reason, but I highly doubt they're the ones making a big stink about their choice.
In conclusion, get over yourselves and the primaries, then make an informed decision this fall.
Not today.
A week ago a common catchphrase was "If Hillary doesn't win I'll vote for McCain". Today it's "If Hillary doesn't get the VP slot I'll vote for McCain" when it isn't "Because Hillary lost I'm voting McCain". I have a brief message for all the people expressing these notions.
You're idiots.
This is not because voting for McCain is idiotic per se, but because the implicit motivations for doing so are. None of the people I've seen making a big deal about voting for McCain in place of Hillary are doing so over policy or presidential potential.
I have plenty of Republican and moderate friends who can and will make an excellent case for voting for McCain over Obama. One of the reasons they will not give is "because I'm whiny over Hillary losing". That's a ridiculously stupid motivation, and it's equally disrespectful to all of the candidates involves.
You might dispute that this is the reason you're declaring that you'd never vote for Obama, but if that's the case back it up. Put some bite behind your bark because otherwise you look like a political idiot. Obama's policies and positions are too similar to Hillary's for people to assume you know what you're talking about when you leave it at "Obama sucks, I'm voting McCain".
There are bound to be people who are switching from Hillary to McCain with a sane mind and reason, but I highly doubt they're the ones making a big stink about their choice.
In conclusion, get over yourselves and the primaries, then make an informed decision this fall.
20080609
What can you do in eight minutes?
Answer: Review the entire timeline of the Democratic Party Primaries.
20080522
Almost there...
A lot of people, myself included, are looking forward to June 4th. On that day, the final tallies will be counted, the numbers processed, and the pundits will give their epitaphs for the election. There will be nothing left to discuss, and we as a country will move on to better and greater things.
Wait, no, I'm wrong.
Come August will be the Democratic National Convention. There, finally, we will have our official branded conclusion. Our next President will be decided, and we can all take a deep sigh of relief and relax.
Hah, who am I kidding?
The Daily Show with John Stewart termed it best, "The Long, Seemingly Endless Bataan Death March to the White House". This won't be over when the last Primary is done, and it certainly won't be over when the convention starts. There'll be a brief period where there isn't any primary fuel for the political news tsunami, but there's plenty of secondary kindling in the form of vice presidential speculation, shots over the bow from both sides, and Hillary's refusal to bow out.
So if you were looking for much political relief in the month of June, you'll sadly have to wait until January. In the meantime, my views on the current political situation.
The current polls of who would win which state in the general election at this point are like predicting who will win a Marathon after the first mile. To say "a lot can happen" is a vast understatement, almost everything has yet to happen. The general election might be as exciting as the democratic primary, or it might be the single dullest general election ever. We can't tell.
The vice presidential searches going on will be more interesting when some actual names are dropped. I don't know enough politicians or politics to have any sense for what would make sense.
Hillary.
There have been a number of allegations recently, spawned by the once vice-presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro, that Hillary Clinton lost due to sexism. While I'm sure that sexism has naturally had some small measure of impact, I think that pointing it out as though it were the major or sole cause of her demise is foolhardy and disrespectful to the harsh realities that women face every day.
Look at the playing field. Every last white, Anglo-Saxon male democratic candidate was absolutely positively demolished, by a woman and an African-American no less. There should be people singing praises for how both candidates have overcome boundaries once thought unbreakable, but apparently that only counts if you get elected.
Generally, I tend to rule out sexism as a major contributing factor because it strikes me that racism is probably an equal barrier for Obama, if not a greater one. It's tough to say as no one took polls on misogyny, but with recent wins for Hillary showing 20% of people admitting they're racist... one has to stop and wonder how much of a disadvantage she really had.
Clinton had key advantages starting out. She was slated to win before it began, she had massive name recognition, money, allies, and super delegates who had already thrown their support behind her. News coverage was basically Clinton vs Everyone Else, with Everyone Else losing soundly.
What lost her this campaign was complacency and short term thinking. She was presumed to be the 2008 nominee as early as 2004. A good contender doesn't rest easy when they're on top, but Clinton did. Her campaign was set up under a number of really bad assumptions as to the nature of the primary season and it showed.
It was assumed that there wouldn't be any substantial competition. The campaign worked from the top down, convincing first the all important local politicians and going down from there. They'd be crucial for the general election. However, in a contested primary this is a very bad strategy. Working from the bottom up not only tends to get more votes (and more people to caucuses) but it also ties the hands of democrats who are still somewhat sour over Al Gore's 2000 popular vote win and presidential loss. The local politicians won't go against the popular vote unless they feel bold enough to risk the ire of their constituents.
It was assumed it would be short. This lead to several separate issues.
Short campaigns don't need to ration money. Once "Super Tuesday" ended the Clinton campaign was effectively bankrupt. They had assumed that would be the end, and Obama's uncontested victories throughout February were the result; completely reversing te gap Hillary had established.
Short campaigns don't need careful consideration. There were a number of promises, positions and policies Hillary spoke about early on which were completely reversed later. Comparing her words from last year versus a few months ago versus today is like looking at three separate people. As a result, her trustworthiness is down the chute.
Short campaigns don't need a unifying theme or message, which Clinton did not have until well into the primary season. Without a clear purpose or response to Obama, he was granted a free ride on his rhetoric for months. It took the internet to find his crazy once-pastor and finally break the invincible bubble.
As much as Rudy Guilliani's campaign will go down in history as how not to win a nomination, so too will Hillary Clinton's.
Right now, Clinton's main arguments are the unseated Delegates in Florida and Michigan and her greater potential for the general election. Lets look at the situation.
I won't go into the math because it's boring, finicky, and pointless. By Obama's math he's obtained a solid majority of pledged delegates in addition to his lead in the popular vote. By Clinton's math no majority has been reached yet, and she leads the popular vote.
The difference comes down to two things, caucuses and the disenfranchised states of Florida and Michigan (a deed effectively done by their own legislatures). Clinton doesn't count caucus votes in her popular vote totals, and she is firmly of the opinion that you can't have a majority without taking into account Florida and Michigan.
I personally find both disingenuous. The former because it's stupidly selective (lets subtract all states that used a particular kind of ballot, had their primaries in months beginning with F, or looked at me funny), and the latter because it actually doesn't help her any.
In the case of the latter, allotting the delegates based on her wins in those states loses her the nomination. Obama retains his majority on pledged delegates and, by any sensical way of counting it, his lead in the popular vote. Hillary closes the gap significantly, but is still so far short that more than 70% of super delegates would have to back her in order for her to win.
This is why so many pundits, talk show hosts, newcasters and political analysts have called the election for Obama. The democrats can not hope to field Hillary as a candidate without alienating their support base. The kind of "screw you" nomination theft that would have to occur would completely obliterate the hopeful people who have set record turnouts and made this primary season as big a deal as it is and was. A very significant portion of Obama's supporters, myself included, would be disheartened, depressed, and ultimately disinclined to ever care about politics again.
The democrats want a democratic president too much for that to happen.
Wait, no, I'm wrong.
Come August will be the Democratic National Convention. There, finally, we will have our official branded conclusion. Our next President will be decided, and we can all take a deep sigh of relief and relax.
Hah, who am I kidding?
The Daily Show with John Stewart termed it best, "The Long, Seemingly Endless Bataan Death March to the White House". This won't be over when the last Primary is done, and it certainly won't be over when the convention starts. There'll be a brief period where there isn't any primary fuel for the political news tsunami, but there's plenty of secondary kindling in the form of vice presidential speculation, shots over the bow from both sides, and Hillary's refusal to bow out.
So if you were looking for much political relief in the month of June, you'll sadly have to wait until January. In the meantime, my views on the current political situation.
The current polls of who would win which state in the general election at this point are like predicting who will win a Marathon after the first mile. To say "a lot can happen" is a vast understatement, almost everything has yet to happen. The general election might be as exciting as the democratic primary, or it might be the single dullest general election ever. We can't tell.
The vice presidential searches going on will be more interesting when some actual names are dropped. I don't know enough politicians or politics to have any sense for what would make sense.
Hillary.
There have been a number of allegations recently, spawned by the once vice-presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro, that Hillary Clinton lost due to sexism. While I'm sure that sexism has naturally had some small measure of impact, I think that pointing it out as though it were the major or sole cause of her demise is foolhardy and disrespectful to the harsh realities that women face every day.
Look at the playing field. Every last white, Anglo-Saxon male democratic candidate was absolutely positively demolished, by a woman and an African-American no less. There should be people singing praises for how both candidates have overcome boundaries once thought unbreakable, but apparently that only counts if you get elected.
Generally, I tend to rule out sexism as a major contributing factor because it strikes me that racism is probably an equal barrier for Obama, if not a greater one. It's tough to say as no one took polls on misogyny, but with recent wins for Hillary showing 20% of people admitting they're racist... one has to stop and wonder how much of a disadvantage she really had.
Clinton had key advantages starting out. She was slated to win before it began, she had massive name recognition, money, allies, and super delegates who had already thrown their support behind her. News coverage was basically Clinton vs Everyone Else, with Everyone Else losing soundly.
What lost her this campaign was complacency and short term thinking. She was presumed to be the 2008 nominee as early as 2004. A good contender doesn't rest easy when they're on top, but Clinton did. Her campaign was set up under a number of really bad assumptions as to the nature of the primary season and it showed.
It was assumed that there wouldn't be any substantial competition. The campaign worked from the top down, convincing first the all important local politicians and going down from there. They'd be crucial for the general election. However, in a contested primary this is a very bad strategy. Working from the bottom up not only tends to get more votes (and more people to caucuses) but it also ties the hands of democrats who are still somewhat sour over Al Gore's 2000 popular vote win and presidential loss. The local politicians won't go against the popular vote unless they feel bold enough to risk the ire of their constituents.
It was assumed it would be short. This lead to several separate issues.
Short campaigns don't need to ration money. Once "Super Tuesday" ended the Clinton campaign was effectively bankrupt. They had assumed that would be the end, and Obama's uncontested victories throughout February were the result; completely reversing te gap Hillary had established.
Short campaigns don't need careful consideration. There were a number of promises, positions and policies Hillary spoke about early on which were completely reversed later. Comparing her words from last year versus a few months ago versus today is like looking at three separate people. As a result, her trustworthiness is down the chute.
Short campaigns don't need a unifying theme or message, which Clinton did not have until well into the primary season. Without a clear purpose or response to Obama, he was granted a free ride on his rhetoric for months. It took the internet to find his crazy once-pastor and finally break the invincible bubble.
As much as Rudy Guilliani's campaign will go down in history as how not to win a nomination, so too will Hillary Clinton's.
Right now, Clinton's main arguments are the unseated Delegates in Florida and Michigan and her greater potential for the general election. Lets look at the situation.
I won't go into the math because it's boring, finicky, and pointless. By Obama's math he's obtained a solid majority of pledged delegates in addition to his lead in the popular vote. By Clinton's math no majority has been reached yet, and she leads the popular vote.
The difference comes down to two things, caucuses and the disenfranchised states of Florida and Michigan (a deed effectively done by their own legislatures). Clinton doesn't count caucus votes in her popular vote totals, and she is firmly of the opinion that you can't have a majority without taking into account Florida and Michigan.
I personally find both disingenuous. The former because it's stupidly selective (lets subtract all states that used a particular kind of ballot, had their primaries in months beginning with F, or looked at me funny), and the latter because it actually doesn't help her any.
In the case of the latter, allotting the delegates based on her wins in those states loses her the nomination. Obama retains his majority on pledged delegates and, by any sensical way of counting it, his lead in the popular vote. Hillary closes the gap significantly, but is still so far short that more than 70% of super delegates would have to back her in order for her to win.
This is why so many pundits, talk show hosts, newcasters and political analysts have called the election for Obama. The democrats can not hope to field Hillary as a candidate without alienating their support base. The kind of "screw you" nomination theft that would have to occur would completely obliterate the hopeful people who have set record turnouts and made this primary season as big a deal as it is and was. A very significant portion of Obama's supporters, myself included, would be disheartened, depressed, and ultimately disinclined to ever care about politics again.
The democrats want a democratic president too much for that to happen.
20080507
Consistency
It makes more sense if you watch it at 3AM while your phone is ringing.
In other news, according to the Democratic delegate counter Hillary could win all the remaining primaries 77% to 23% and still lose the primary if the undecided superdelegates are split 50/50. On the other hand, Hillary could convince 70% of the remaining superdelegates she's the best candidate, and Obama would still win splitting the remaining primaries 50/50.
It will be interesting to hear how Clinton plans on continuing her case for the presidency in the face of such odds.
20080415
Bitter
So there's been much ado about Obama's comments stating that people are bitter about watching jobs go away for 25 years and never come back. The best insight I've read on the incident is that this was the kind of comment a social scientist makes, not a presidential candidate. In my mind, that's the obvious failing on Obama's part, he wasn't a good enough politician.
However, I'd like to rail a bit against Hillary and McCain, not because they're wrong to rail on Obama for this (indeed, it's an excellent opportunity to score some political points), but because they're wrong about bitter people.
Here's a picture caption I've lifted from the BBC's article.
I'm going to cynically note that this statement is absolutely correct. Bitter people don't vote (most of the time). So, obviously this doesn't reflect the beliefs of voters, who are the people Clinton is really concerned about.
It's wrong for me to make that italicized generalization as there are a number of the bitter that do vote. However, I'm willing to wager that the "bitter" vote is not a motivated one, and doesn't show substantially at the polls.
My argument here is that Clinton's statement may reveal the truth behind her, and other politicians, motivations. They're concerned with the people who vote, and not with "getting out the vote". Anyone who isn't voting isn't on their radar.
So in effect, Obama's practicing Nintendo's philosophy: When you're being beaten in the current field, find a new one. He's turned to the bitter.
As a fringe bitter person, I've actually found some of Clinton's remarks offensive. Take the following as an example.
"Senator Obama's remarks are elitist and are out of touch. They are not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans, certainly not the Americans that I know."
She has made a series of similar statements, calling "Americans" such adjectives as resilient and hopeful. From my perspective these are flat out insults to people such as I.
Firstly, I'm going to latch onto the "certainly not the Americans that I know" bit. I'm going to assert that Clinton obviously doesn't know any bitter people. Given my experience that there are plenty of bitter people, at least respective to government, I'll further assert that this statement is downright insulting to bitter people. It implies that not only are bitter people not "Americans", but also that they aren't important enough to know someone like Hillary Clinton.
Secondly, the insults continue (backwards) as bitterness doesn't fit into "American" values and beliefs. Bitterness was what spawned this nation, bitterness at unfair government. If anything, the bitter are the most American people here.
Lastly, bitter people are, contrary to what's implied by Clinton, resilient. You don't survive being bitter because you're brittle, you survive because you toughen up and deal with the harsh reality.
So in short, I think Clinton's trying to score brownie points with the voters.
McCain's comments are far less insulting, although they're equally oblivious to the reality that, in fact, a number of people lean more heavily on the items that Obama mentioned when bitterness and hardship come their way. I'm sure he understands, what with his Vietnam experience, but he may simply have a more positive outlook.
In any case, the whole thing has been blown out of proportion, but it's given Hillary yet another chance to put her foot in her mouth (at least for me).
However, I'd like to rail a bit against Hillary and McCain, not because they're wrong to rail on Obama for this (indeed, it's an excellent opportunity to score some political points), but because they're wrong about bitter people.
Here's a picture caption I've lifted from the BBC's article.
"Mrs Clinton said the remarks did not reflect the values and beliefs of voters."
I'm going to cynically note that this statement is absolutely correct. Bitter people don't vote (most of the time). So, obviously this doesn't reflect the beliefs of voters, who are the people Clinton is really concerned about.
It's wrong for me to make that italicized generalization as there are a number of the bitter that do vote. However, I'm willing to wager that the "bitter" vote is not a motivated one, and doesn't show substantially at the polls.
My argument here is that Clinton's statement may reveal the truth behind her, and other politicians, motivations. They're concerned with the people who vote, and not with "getting out the vote". Anyone who isn't voting isn't on their radar.
So in effect, Obama's practicing Nintendo's philosophy: When you're being beaten in the current field, find a new one. He's turned to the bitter.
As a fringe bitter person, I've actually found some of Clinton's remarks offensive. Take the following as an example.
"Senator Obama's remarks are elitist and are out of touch. They are not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans, certainly not the Americans that I know."
She has made a series of similar statements, calling "Americans" such adjectives as resilient and hopeful. From my perspective these are flat out insults to people such as I.
Firstly, I'm going to latch onto the "certainly not the Americans that I know" bit. I'm going to assert that Clinton obviously doesn't know any bitter people. Given my experience that there are plenty of bitter people, at least respective to government, I'll further assert that this statement is downright insulting to bitter people. It implies that not only are bitter people not "Americans", but also that they aren't important enough to know someone like Hillary Clinton.
Secondly, the insults continue (backwards) as bitterness doesn't fit into "American" values and beliefs. Bitterness was what spawned this nation, bitterness at unfair government. If anything, the bitter are the most American people here.
Lastly, bitter people are, contrary to what's implied by Clinton, resilient. You don't survive being bitter because you're brittle, you survive because you toughen up and deal with the harsh reality.
So in short, I think Clinton's trying to score brownie points with the voters.
McCain's comments are far less insulting, although they're equally oblivious to the reality that, in fact, a number of people lean more heavily on the items that Obama mentioned when bitterness and hardship come their way. I'm sure he understands, what with his Vietnam experience, but he may simply have a more positive outlook.
In any case, the whole thing has been blown out of proportion, but it's given Hillary yet another chance to put her foot in her mouth (at least for me).
20080407
Shifting Goal Posts, and Other Musings
First the argument was made that Clinton would win the Democratic nomination because of her lead in delegates.
When that fell through, the argument was made that her overall lead counting the superdelegates made her the prime contender.
As that argument was dashed to the rocks, one was made that should she get the popular vote she would have to be the candidate.
Now, as even that argument falls apart, it is now being argued that Clinton won the states that matter in the general election, and that her electoral vote count would be greater than Obama's.
I'm not naive enough to think Obama is squeaky clean in this area. The practice of over-emphasizing the silver lining is pretty standard. However, this shifting of goals isn't a silver lining at all.
The implicit message when a candidate gives a "silver lining" talking point is that "this is why I'll overtake my opponent". Obama didn't say that the popular vote, delegates or super delegates didn't matter when he was down and some thought soon to be counted out. He highlighted his breakthroughs in demographics no one would have thought could vote for him, the piecemeal nature of his donations, and his message. At times it certainly was a stretch, but it was at least honest.
What the Clinton campaign, now down a chief strategist, is doing isn't pointing out the silver lining, it's attempting to change the rules. Rather than taking the positives (of which there are plenty) and bringing them out, the Clinton campaign seems content to dismiss any accomplishment made by its opponent. This is ridiculous, as these are the same accomplishments it would be lauding where they its own.
Should Clinton win the nomination it will be anyone's guess who I vote for. Had this question been asked back in December I probably would have blinked a few times. McCain over Clinton, are you crazy? However, the manner in which the Clinton campaign has been waged is not befitting of anyone attempting to distance themselves from the errors of the republicans.
For example, the recent row with Clinton's chief strategist. His sin was, effectively, that he maintained his cushy CEO position and other corporate jobs while taking heaps of money from the campaign to make a horrible mess. This is a kind of heresy for the democrats, or at least hypocrisy. Normally that's the kind of problem you expect from the republicans.
In fact, the entire Clinton campaign has played out exactly how no democrat's should. It was divisive, petty, hypocritical, dishonest and pessimistic. The beautiful moments, ironically, came when Clinton broke from the established strategy and simply was Hillary Clinton.
In conclusion, I honestly believe that if Hillary Clinton wins the democratic nomination, McCain will win the general election. Her campaign has undermined every talking point she can bring against him. We have months worth of material that McCain can use to knock the Clinton Campaign silly. All McCain has to do is simply point, and laugh.
When that fell through, the argument was made that her overall lead counting the superdelegates made her the prime contender.
As that argument was dashed to the rocks, one was made that should she get the popular vote she would have to be the candidate.
Now, as even that argument falls apart, it is now being argued that Clinton won the states that matter in the general election, and that her electoral vote count would be greater than Obama's.
I'm not naive enough to think Obama is squeaky clean in this area. The practice of over-emphasizing the silver lining is pretty standard. However, this shifting of goals isn't a silver lining at all.
The implicit message when a candidate gives a "silver lining" talking point is that "this is why I'll overtake my opponent". Obama didn't say that the popular vote, delegates or super delegates didn't matter when he was down and some thought soon to be counted out. He highlighted his breakthroughs in demographics no one would have thought could vote for him, the piecemeal nature of his donations, and his message. At times it certainly was a stretch, but it was at least honest.
What the Clinton campaign, now down a chief strategist, is doing isn't pointing out the silver lining, it's attempting to change the rules. Rather than taking the positives (of which there are plenty) and bringing them out, the Clinton campaign seems content to dismiss any accomplishment made by its opponent. This is ridiculous, as these are the same accomplishments it would be lauding where they its own.
Should Clinton win the nomination it will be anyone's guess who I vote for. Had this question been asked back in December I probably would have blinked a few times. McCain over Clinton, are you crazy? However, the manner in which the Clinton campaign has been waged is not befitting of anyone attempting to distance themselves from the errors of the republicans.
For example, the recent row with Clinton's chief strategist. His sin was, effectively, that he maintained his cushy CEO position and other corporate jobs while taking heaps of money from the campaign to make a horrible mess. This is a kind of heresy for the democrats, or at least hypocrisy. Normally that's the kind of problem you expect from the republicans.
In fact, the entire Clinton campaign has played out exactly how no democrat's should. It was divisive, petty, hypocritical, dishonest and pessimistic. The beautiful moments, ironically, came when Clinton broke from the established strategy and simply was Hillary Clinton.
In conclusion, I honestly believe that if Hillary Clinton wins the democratic nomination, McCain will win the general election. Her campaign has undermined every talking point she can bring against him. We have months worth of material that McCain can use to knock the Clinton Campaign silly. All McCain has to do is simply point, and laugh.
20080306
Marathons
So, where to begin.
Section 1: Caucus
Tuesday was pretty incredible, and pretty tiring. It was extremely difficult to get a parking space for the precinct convention/caucus, but I managed. The cafeteria where the caucuses for two precincts were being held was full to the brim. Apparently my precinct had twice as many people show up as they estimated (and they attempted to account for a potential surge of interest to boot).
The precinct convention itself was pretty stressful.
The next time I attend one, and I think it's likely I will, I'm going to have a resolution with me to include Robert's Rules of Order as a mandatory inclusion in studies of government for middle and high school. The precinct convention took about twice as long as it should have, for the very reason that a good number of people had no idea how to follow said rules.
I was practically infuriated with various people who would monopolize the floor, and upon ceding it to someone else continue to monopolize it anyway by interrupting anyone who disagreed with them in protest. That's disrespectful and unhelpful in facilitating orderly and timely discussion.
My annoyance with grandstanders aside, it was a very interesting process. First we all signed in, denoting our chosen candidate and whether or not we'd be willing to be a delegate to the county convention. Following that we elected the precinct chair, secretary and sergeant at arms.
That process is actually what took far longer than it should have. There were some people with a political axe to grind who were not satisfied with the people who'd already been running the convention to that point, and attempted to supplant them with their own friends. Oddly enough, the voting process maintained the status quo and even ousted the only figure they might have seen as sympathetic to them, electing instead for sergeant at arms the precinct chair's own daughter. The irony was amusing, although I'd much rather have just skipped the extra hour and gotten down to business.
The officials elected, we ascertained that everyone had signed in, voted that the sign in sheets move from temporary status to official, and the count was initiated. While the count was going on we divided into groups for Hillary and Obama, separate caucuses, to determine candidates to be delegates. Following that, we waited for the count to be complete and the county delegate totals for each side decided.
I should note that through this entire process people leaked out of the room and went home. This didn't affect the vote, as they had already signed in, but it did highlight how unprepared many people were for the process.
The delegate counts were triple checked, and in the end Obama netted 14 to Hillary's 11. Relatively shortly thereafter we voted on delegates, of which I am now one. At this point it had been approximately two and a half hours.
After both caucuses determined their delegates, we joined back together and voted that the lists be made official. Then "all that was left" to do was vote on resolutions. This ended up taking over two hours.
It took so long, again, because people really need to follow Robert's Rules of Order. The rules are in place so that outspoken people are not able to dominate such debates, which several attempted to do. We spent half an hour arguing over a resolution because there was a perception we could not amend it, something that wasn't able to be brought to light until finally the blow-hards tired themselves enough that I got the chance to point it out. After people took five minutes to get over their misconceptions and address the real problem at hand things went more smoothly. A clearer example of the failings of confrontational debate I have not seen.
Several resolutions were tabled for being too vague or unnecessarily long. However, we did pass a couple resolutions of worth, which made it all worthwhile in the end. At the same time my nerves were rather frayed by the complete inability of some people to respect and communicate with any level of effectiveness. I was glad to be heading for home.
I got home at midnight, exhausted and passive. I wasn't excited about the victory we'd won for Obama, or for my continued involvement in the process going forward. I was mentally too worn out from the whole ordeal to be anything other than a vegetable, a hungry, sleepless vegetable. I destressed with some easy cooking and mindless slaughter of fictional evil, then finally zonked out.
Section 2: On the results
Despite my fervent hopes the democratic contest did not end after Tuesday. Clinton triumphed in three of four primaries, although it's something of a Pyrrhic victory. While she won the Texas Primary, it's estimated Obama will actually net more Texan delegates due to a projected landslide victory in the caucuses. Obama's clear victory in Vermont also offsets Clinton's Rhode Island win, and the Ohio victory was so close that there's little to be gained there as well.
The projected result is that Clinton will have gained a grand total of 12 delegates on Obama in a contest allotting more than 30 times that number. That is bad.
While the Clinton camp is no doubt relieved that Obama failed to deliver a KO punch on the 4th, and that they managed to plug the holes in what was a rapidly eroding core consituency, they still lost big. I assure you this isn't me being biased, I'm being mathematical.
There is a gap between Hillary and Obama, a gap that becomes mathematically harder to close the further along we get. A whole third of the remaining pledged delegates were decided on the 4th, with less than a tenth of the gap closed. On top of that a majority of the remaining contests, including many delegate rich ones, play into the demographics that have carried Obama. It's not impossible for her to win these contests, but at best she'll win them by razor thin margins when she needs landslide victories. Even counting delegates from the disenfranchised states of Michigan and Florida has been calculated to leave Hillary at best tied and at worst still short of her opponent. The final straw is the apprehension the super delegates have about flying in the face of the popular opinion, as voting against the will of the people might sully the image of the party and hand the election over to the Republicans.
So what does this all mean?
At this point the delegate counts almost cease to matter. I say almost, because the gap itself between the candidates carries clout within it. The wider the gap between them come the national convention, the more firepower Obama has to combat Clinton. The smaller the gap, the more electability and McCain come to the forefront.
If the trends continue as they have, largely unmoved by scandal or political positioning, then Obama will likely be in the better position come August.
Section 3: Conclusion
I'm still neither a democrat nor a republican, but it seems I've taken a side this time around. Alas, poor Huckabee, I knew him well.
Section 1: Caucus
Tuesday was pretty incredible, and pretty tiring. It was extremely difficult to get a parking space for the precinct convention/caucus, but I managed. The cafeteria where the caucuses for two precincts were being held was full to the brim. Apparently my precinct had twice as many people show up as they estimated (and they attempted to account for a potential surge of interest to boot).
The precinct convention itself was pretty stressful.
The next time I attend one, and I think it's likely I will, I'm going to have a resolution with me to include Robert's Rules of Order as a mandatory inclusion in studies of government for middle and high school. The precinct convention took about twice as long as it should have, for the very reason that a good number of people had no idea how to follow said rules.
I was practically infuriated with various people who would monopolize the floor, and upon ceding it to someone else continue to monopolize it anyway by interrupting anyone who disagreed with them in protest. That's disrespectful and unhelpful in facilitating orderly and timely discussion.
My annoyance with grandstanders aside, it was a very interesting process. First we all signed in, denoting our chosen candidate and whether or not we'd be willing to be a delegate to the county convention. Following that we elected the precinct chair, secretary and sergeant at arms.
That process is actually what took far longer than it should have. There were some people with a political axe to grind who were not satisfied with the people who'd already been running the convention to that point, and attempted to supplant them with their own friends. Oddly enough, the voting process maintained the status quo and even ousted the only figure they might have seen as sympathetic to them, electing instead for sergeant at arms the precinct chair's own daughter. The irony was amusing, although I'd much rather have just skipped the extra hour and gotten down to business.
The officials elected, we ascertained that everyone had signed in, voted that the sign in sheets move from temporary status to official, and the count was initiated. While the count was going on we divided into groups for Hillary and Obama, separate caucuses, to determine candidates to be delegates. Following that, we waited for the count to be complete and the county delegate totals for each side decided.
I should note that through this entire process people leaked out of the room and went home. This didn't affect the vote, as they had already signed in, but it did highlight how unprepared many people were for the process.
The delegate counts were triple checked, and in the end Obama netted 14 to Hillary's 11. Relatively shortly thereafter we voted on delegates, of which I am now one. At this point it had been approximately two and a half hours.
After both caucuses determined their delegates, we joined back together and voted that the lists be made official. Then "all that was left" to do was vote on resolutions. This ended up taking over two hours.
It took so long, again, because people really need to follow Robert's Rules of Order. The rules are in place so that outspoken people are not able to dominate such debates, which several attempted to do. We spent half an hour arguing over a resolution because there was a perception we could not amend it, something that wasn't able to be brought to light until finally the blow-hards tired themselves enough that I got the chance to point it out. After people took five minutes to get over their misconceptions and address the real problem at hand things went more smoothly. A clearer example of the failings of confrontational debate I have not seen.
Several resolutions were tabled for being too vague or unnecessarily long. However, we did pass a couple resolutions of worth, which made it all worthwhile in the end. At the same time my nerves were rather frayed by the complete inability of some people to respect and communicate with any level of effectiveness. I was glad to be heading for home.
I got home at midnight, exhausted and passive. I wasn't excited about the victory we'd won for Obama, or for my continued involvement in the process going forward. I was mentally too worn out from the whole ordeal to be anything other than a vegetable, a hungry, sleepless vegetable. I destressed with some easy cooking and mindless slaughter of fictional evil, then finally zonked out.
Section 2: On the results
Despite my fervent hopes the democratic contest did not end after Tuesday. Clinton triumphed in three of four primaries, although it's something of a Pyrrhic victory. While she won the Texas Primary, it's estimated Obama will actually net more Texan delegates due to a projected landslide victory in the caucuses. Obama's clear victory in Vermont also offsets Clinton's Rhode Island win, and the Ohio victory was so close that there's little to be gained there as well.
The projected result is that Clinton will have gained a grand total of 12 delegates on Obama in a contest allotting more than 30 times that number. That is bad.
While the Clinton camp is no doubt relieved that Obama failed to deliver a KO punch on the 4th, and that they managed to plug the holes in what was a rapidly eroding core consituency, they still lost big. I assure you this isn't me being biased, I'm being mathematical.
There is a gap between Hillary and Obama, a gap that becomes mathematically harder to close the further along we get. A whole third of the remaining pledged delegates were decided on the 4th, with less than a tenth of the gap closed. On top of that a majority of the remaining contests, including many delegate rich ones, play into the demographics that have carried Obama. It's not impossible for her to win these contests, but at best she'll win them by razor thin margins when she needs landslide victories. Even counting delegates from the disenfranchised states of Michigan and Florida has been calculated to leave Hillary at best tied and at worst still short of her opponent. The final straw is the apprehension the super delegates have about flying in the face of the popular opinion, as voting against the will of the people might sully the image of the party and hand the election over to the Republicans.
So what does this all mean?
At this point the delegate counts almost cease to matter. I say almost, because the gap itself between the candidates carries clout within it. The wider the gap between them come the national convention, the more firepower Obama has to combat Clinton. The smaller the gap, the more electability and McCain come to the forefront.
If the trends continue as they have, largely unmoved by scandal or political positioning, then Obama will likely be in the better position come August.
Section 3: Conclusion
I'm still neither a democrat nor a republican, but it seems I've taken a side this time around. Alas, poor Huckabee, I knew him well.
20080305
Cawkus
I just got back from the Texas Caucus Precinct Convention thing.
Summarization, it was long, but largely worthwhile. I ended up becoming a delegate to the county convention for Obama. 14-11 delegate split in his favor.
We'll see how the other caucuses ended up on the morrow, and I'll write more about the process.
Summarization, it was long, but largely worthwhile. I ended up becoming a delegate to the county convention for Obama. 14-11 delegate split in his favor.
We'll see how the other caucuses ended up on the morrow, and I'll write more about the process.
20080211
Rant: Election Ramblings
I'm publicly stating a lot of my political opinions here for several reasons. One, this is my personal space and I've always maintained that it is primarily here as an outlet for my thoughts and creativity. Two, I find it is probably best if I let my political thoughts be scrutinized by some of my politically active friends.
The number of remaining candidates in both races have thinned, although each is now sporting its own flavor. For the democrats we have a heated neck in neck battle, and for the republicans we have a sure race with a leader and a pair of runners who refuse to accept defeat. I'll touch on the latter first.
I don't have as much to say about the republicans because I'm not as invested in the outcome. The people I disliked have all dropped out, leaving my second choice in the lead and my first choice in second. While a lot of Huckabee's policies are described as insane, I have faith that the house and senate would regulate such matters. As it stands I'm rooting for him to keep going as it will keep McCain honest. Ultimately, I don't feel McCain's a bad candidate. It's refreshing for him to say outright that it might be necessary to stay in Iraq for decades, when for years his fellows have said otherwise. I don't think it's worthwhile for us to do so, but that's another matter altogether.
I'll probably write for a while about the democrats, for obvious reasons.
There's a lot of media attention flying around the democratic contest, probably because it is so gripping and shows little sign of letting up. While I'm sure McCain's camp is actively considering what strategy to pursue in either case, people are generally excited at seeing either the first woman or black presidential candidate.
The race is at a stalemate, and will be for another month. The last chance for a "knockout blow" comes March 4th, when the 255 pledged delegates held between Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island are decided.
Begin speculation.
My general gut feeling is that Hillary is on the ropes. Perhaps I am being overly influenced by the media, but there are a lot of little cues pointing to bigger problems. The removal of her campaign manager, the five million dollar investment in her campaign, her somewhat petty comments concerning Obama's recent string of victories, and polls showing stronger confidence in Obama's ability to best McCain all point to a campaign that is in trouble.
One of the biggest issues is one of money. It is speculative to say that the Clinton campaign is in a financial crisis, but I think it's very likely. Consider for the moment how easily Clinton is giving up on almost all of the states holding contests in February. That is not the tactic of a strongly funded campaign. In a system where delegates are awarded proportionally, it's foolhardy to avoid establishing a strong presence in any state, even ones where you're likely to lose. At this point, it seems obvious that any resources Hillary now possesses are being saved for the trifecta of contests on March 4th.
To continue the speculation, we can extrapolate something of Hillary's past strategy. It seems possible that she banked on February 5th being the day where she ascended above the competition, much as McCain did. Unlike McCain, her "victory" was indecisive at best and even fictional depending on how you look at matters. The result is a lot of money, probably most of it, spent for a tie.
Add to this equation Obama's significant cash flow and you have a recipe for disaster. According to reports, only 3% of those who have donated to Obama have donated the maximum of $2300, whereas Hillary is in the opposite position. Even if both candidates spent the majority of their holdings on "Super Tuesday", Obama is in an excellent position to fight by attrition.
The worst part of this scenario is that it forces Hillary to do exactly what she did on February 5th. Even with her five million dollar influx, she can't afford to spend money on anything prior to March. She might even ignore Rhode Island, instead focusing entirely on Texas and Ohio. If March 4th plays out anything like February 5th, that effort will be wasted.
The other large issue is momentum. Rudy Giuliani spent an entire month in Florida ahead of his competitors. Despite that investment he was soundly beaten by two competitors and effectively tied one other. If momentum split between three candidates can bowl over someone so heavily invested in a contest, unified momentum could be unstoppable.
While momentum wasn't the only factor in Giuliani's loss, it's notable enough that many are making comparisons to Hillary's current strategy and Giuliani's. With Black History Month effectively called for Obama, a lot of eyes are looking to see if March 4th will signal the end of the "big state" strategy once and for all.
Lastly, there's little question as to who the democrat nominee will be facing in November. McCain is the frontrunner for the republicans by far, and polls show that Obama is given a much better chance against him than Hillary. With "Super Tuesday" having been a razor thin tie, any factor that could swing people away from Hillary is significant. There's always the chance for a miracle in the republican camp, but such a miracle will come far too late for Hillary.
In short, right now Obama has the money, the momentum, and the credentials. Even a loss on March 4th is unlikely to end his bid, unless it is very decisive. Meanwhile, Hillary is teetering on the edge. Her campaign could be over if she ties Obama in March, let alone if Ohio or Texas swing his way.
So is it all over? Is Hillary truly finished? Hah! As I said this is speculation, largely based on gut feelings established by reading articles, watching newcasts, and browsing comments from random people such as "obama08" and "prezhillary". If anything, this is analogous to those crazy conspiracy theories which begin plausibly enough and end with Zionist death rays on the moon.
It's entirely possible for Hillary to turn things around, for Obama to goof up, or for the second coming to render the whole thing moot. If Obama loses Virginia, for example, it would be a notable bump in his momentum, and bring up questions of his ability to crash through the March contests like a tsunami.
Personally, I don't see the status quo being upset in February (irony intended). Hillary's recent remarks concerning Obama's victories are sour at best, and offensive at worst. It's fair enough to downplay the importance of such victories, but it's another thing altogether to call caucuses undemocratic, and write off the importance of the African-American vote.
Those comments are a small part in why I'd never vote for Hillary. I've met a large number of people via my leadership position in my World of Warcraft guild. I've interviewed lots of potential candidates who wanted into our group, and I've turned away quite a few. Hillary shares a number of attributes with these people. There are disturbing parts her speeches that are all too reminiscent of various leeches and sycophants that sought into our guild not for the friendship but for the rewards we could carry them to. Her answers to questions are always self-oriented with lip service paid to key people or concepts. Overall, she hasn't given a clear idea of who she is. To top it off, her remarks she makes when she wins or loses point to arrogance and needless pride. If I were interviewing her for a position, I wouldn't be inclined to let her in.
Were Hillary to win the democrat nomination, she would have an uphill battle convincing me to vote for her. I'd be likely to vote for McCain, but if he loses my confidence I will have no hesitation writing in Obama, Huckabee, or Ron Paul come November.
So there you have it. To some effect that's my prediction for the days to come. It's rambly and will probably bear out to be largely inaccurate, but I needed to get that off my mind a bit.
The number of remaining candidates in both races have thinned, although each is now sporting its own flavor. For the democrats we have a heated neck in neck battle, and for the republicans we have a sure race with a leader and a pair of runners who refuse to accept defeat. I'll touch on the latter first.
I don't have as much to say about the republicans because I'm not as invested in the outcome. The people I disliked have all dropped out, leaving my second choice in the lead and my first choice in second. While a lot of Huckabee's policies are described as insane, I have faith that the house and senate would regulate such matters. As it stands I'm rooting for him to keep going as it will keep McCain honest. Ultimately, I don't feel McCain's a bad candidate. It's refreshing for him to say outright that it might be necessary to stay in Iraq for decades, when for years his fellows have said otherwise. I don't think it's worthwhile for us to do so, but that's another matter altogether.
I'll probably write for a while about the democrats, for obvious reasons.
There's a lot of media attention flying around the democratic contest, probably because it is so gripping and shows little sign of letting up. While I'm sure McCain's camp is actively considering what strategy to pursue in either case, people are generally excited at seeing either the first woman or black presidential candidate.
The race is at a stalemate, and will be for another month. The last chance for a "knockout blow" comes March 4th, when the 255 pledged delegates held between Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island are decided.
Begin speculation.
My general gut feeling is that Hillary is on the ropes. Perhaps I am being overly influenced by the media, but there are a lot of little cues pointing to bigger problems. The removal of her campaign manager, the five million dollar investment in her campaign, her somewhat petty comments concerning Obama's recent string of victories, and polls showing stronger confidence in Obama's ability to best McCain all point to a campaign that is in trouble.
One of the biggest issues is one of money. It is speculative to say that the Clinton campaign is in a financial crisis, but I think it's very likely. Consider for the moment how easily Clinton is giving up on almost all of the states holding contests in February. That is not the tactic of a strongly funded campaign. In a system where delegates are awarded proportionally, it's foolhardy to avoid establishing a strong presence in any state, even ones where you're likely to lose. At this point, it seems obvious that any resources Hillary now possesses are being saved for the trifecta of contests on March 4th.
To continue the speculation, we can extrapolate something of Hillary's past strategy. It seems possible that she banked on February 5th being the day where she ascended above the competition, much as McCain did. Unlike McCain, her "victory" was indecisive at best and even fictional depending on how you look at matters. The result is a lot of money, probably most of it, spent for a tie.
Add to this equation Obama's significant cash flow and you have a recipe for disaster. According to reports, only 3% of those who have donated to Obama have donated the maximum of $2300, whereas Hillary is in the opposite position. Even if both candidates spent the majority of their holdings on "Super Tuesday", Obama is in an excellent position to fight by attrition.
The worst part of this scenario is that it forces Hillary to do exactly what she did on February 5th. Even with her five million dollar influx, she can't afford to spend money on anything prior to March. She might even ignore Rhode Island, instead focusing entirely on Texas and Ohio. If March 4th plays out anything like February 5th, that effort will be wasted.
The other large issue is momentum. Rudy Giuliani spent an entire month in Florida ahead of his competitors. Despite that investment he was soundly beaten by two competitors and effectively tied one other. If momentum split between three candidates can bowl over someone so heavily invested in a contest, unified momentum could be unstoppable.
While momentum wasn't the only factor in Giuliani's loss, it's notable enough that many are making comparisons to Hillary's current strategy and Giuliani's. With Black History Month effectively called for Obama, a lot of eyes are looking to see if March 4th will signal the end of the "big state" strategy once and for all.
Lastly, there's little question as to who the democrat nominee will be facing in November. McCain is the frontrunner for the republicans by far, and polls show that Obama is given a much better chance against him than Hillary. With "Super Tuesday" having been a razor thin tie, any factor that could swing people away from Hillary is significant. There's always the chance for a miracle in the republican camp, but such a miracle will come far too late for Hillary.
In short, right now Obama has the money, the momentum, and the credentials. Even a loss on March 4th is unlikely to end his bid, unless it is very decisive. Meanwhile, Hillary is teetering on the edge. Her campaign could be over if she ties Obama in March, let alone if Ohio or Texas swing his way.
So is it all over? Is Hillary truly finished? Hah! As I said this is speculation, largely based on gut feelings established by reading articles, watching newcasts, and browsing comments from random people such as "obama08" and "prezhillary". If anything, this is analogous to those crazy conspiracy theories which begin plausibly enough and end with Zionist death rays on the moon.
It's entirely possible for Hillary to turn things around, for Obama to goof up, or for the second coming to render the whole thing moot. If Obama loses Virginia, for example, it would be a notable bump in his momentum, and bring up questions of his ability to crash through the March contests like a tsunami.
Personally, I don't see the status quo being upset in February (irony intended). Hillary's recent remarks concerning Obama's victories are sour at best, and offensive at worst. It's fair enough to downplay the importance of such victories, but it's another thing altogether to call caucuses undemocratic, and write off the importance of the African-American vote.
Those comments are a small part in why I'd never vote for Hillary. I've met a large number of people via my leadership position in my World of Warcraft guild. I've interviewed lots of potential candidates who wanted into our group, and I've turned away quite a few. Hillary shares a number of attributes with these people. There are disturbing parts her speeches that are all too reminiscent of various leeches and sycophants that sought into our guild not for the friendship but for the rewards we could carry them to. Her answers to questions are always self-oriented with lip service paid to key people or concepts. Overall, she hasn't given a clear idea of who she is. To top it off, her remarks she makes when she wins or loses point to arrogance and needless pride. If I were interviewing her for a position, I wouldn't be inclined to let her in.
Were Hillary to win the democrat nomination, she would have an uphill battle convincing me to vote for her. I'd be likely to vote for McCain, but if he loses my confidence I will have no hesitation writing in Obama, Huckabee, or Ron Paul come November.
So there you have it. To some effect that's my prediction for the days to come. It's rambly and will probably bear out to be largely inaccurate, but I needed to get that off my mind a bit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
