PDA

View Full Version : Democrat Political Hijinks



Paul Pless
02-06-2008, 07:20 AM
For all that talk (norman) a few months ago about a brokered GOP convention, it could well be that the real controversy in this presidential cycle's selection of candidates will come from the Democrats and their so called super-delegates. Awfully democratic of that party, eh?

Milo Christensen
02-06-2008, 07:30 AM
Michigan got no Dem delegates, excepting dem dam Dem superdelegates.

Six months ago I couldn't even spell disenfranchised, now I am.

You vill obey zee rules of zee National Democratic Party!

Ian McColgin
02-06-2008, 07:54 AM
Checks and balances, folk, checks and balances.

Governmentally we balance the "tyranny of the majority" with the BIll of Rights etc. Our Founders, mistrusting the great unwashed mob, balanced popular interest - in theory the House - with the more monied interest of the Senate.

The Democratic Party found after Chicago that it had to be more open to people's movements or it would die. But it also found that pure popular whim does not always produce a viable candidate or a working administration, though I'd argue that Carter was far better than credited.

The "superdelegates" or perhaps elected officials delegates are just that, elected officials. As elected officials they have a major stake in the party's other candidates and in the party's platform. They were elected to both direct political office and, in the case of Democrats, as party delegates as well for just that purpose.

Nothing disenfranchising there. It's really a more responsive system than the Republicans'.

Paul Pless
02-06-2008, 08:11 AM
The "superdelegates" or perhaps elected officials delegates are just that, elected officials. As elected officials they have a major stake in the party's other candidates and in the party's platform. Defending the establishment, never would've thought to hear such from you Ian.:rolleyes:

Joe (SoCal)
02-06-2008, 08:16 AM
2000 Republican superdelegate

http://garlinggauge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/jeb.jpg

Ian McColgin
02-06-2008, 08:23 AM
One headbashing at Chicago was enough for me. I believe in balances. A party is a vote getting machine that needs inputs from its pros and its insurgents and its loyalists and its newcomers to work.

The establishment is the old-fashioned pure party organization approach to selecting delegates. The diversity of caucus to primary and elected official to elected delegate makes a good mix.

S.V. Airlie
02-06-2008, 08:28 AM
I am so glad that the likes of Sen Byrd ( a 90 yr old ) will cast a vote for me. I'm sure, just becuse he is older than God, he is a super delegate. I do wonder who is going to help him put pen to paper though:eek::rolleyes:

John of Phoenix
02-06-2008, 08:40 AM
I curious why Paul or Milo (or any other republican for that matter) would give a damn about anything at all concerning the workings of the Democratic Party.

Trolling this morning?

Paul Pless
02-06-2008, 08:44 AM
Whoever said anything about me voting republican?

Joe (SoCal)
02-06-2008, 08:46 AM
Whoever said anything about me voting republican?

You've not expressed any political party but you've definitely have expressed an anti democratic slant ;)

S.V. Airlie
02-06-2008, 08:48 AM
I curious why Paul or Milo (or any other republican for that matter) would give a damn about anything at all concerning the workings of the Democratic Party.

Trolling this morning?

Actually John. Very simple to answer. I am a registered Republican but being registered as one does not mean I will vote for one...

Bob Smalser
02-06-2008, 09:18 AM
Checks and balances, folk, checks and balances.

Nothing disenfranchising there.

Sounds like an apologist for the DNC. Don't complain about the electoral system then. ;)

With McCain against Hillary, you have a lot bigger problems to worry about. You could actually lose what should be a shoe-in. That will be a hoot.

Milo Christensen
02-06-2008, 09:24 AM
. . . Trolling this morning?

For the democratic process to work, one citizen / one vote has to be the operative principle. Michigan Democrats in their millions were disenfranchised because Michigan wanted it's day in the spotlight and moved up it's primary. Because Obama played by the rules, we didn't get to vote for him (a little thing we Republicans like to do here in Michigan). Disenfranchised.

The concept of elected politicians (super delegates) representing the will of the people in choosing the candidates for the next election is not democratic, it's republican.

With respect to choosing the candidate for President the Republican party is more democratic than the Democratic party and the Democratic party is more republican than the Republican party.

It would seem, John, to be a topic worthy of discussion and not a troll.

Phillip Allen
02-06-2008, 09:28 AM
Whoever said anything about me voting republican?


I think you're being told "you're either with us or against us"

Bruce Taylor
02-06-2008, 09:33 AM
Don't complain about the electoral system then. ;)

Has Ian been complaining about the electoral system? I hadn't noticed.

Perhaps you were just warning him not to do it, in case he decided to start? As you know, the list of things Ian shouldn't start doing is long. ;)

Phillip Allen
02-06-2008, 09:35 AM
now we've heard from Ian's spuire and cushion carrier... :)

S.V. Airlie
02-06-2008, 09:38 AM
Norman, it may be good for the party if they (Obama and Clinton ) don't kill each other first...;)

Andrew Craig-Bennett
02-06-2008, 09:44 AM
(as the proverbial Martian observer...)

It seems to me that Ian is correct and Bob's point ilustrates this.

The iron law of two party politics is that you rise within your party on the outside flank, then switch to the centre to win nationally. You won't carry your party's faithful from the centre, but you won't carry the nation from anywhere else.

The Democrat regular troops will turn out for Clinton, as they have done.

But she cannot carry the middle ground against McCain.

Therefore the super-delegates need to put in Obama, who will.

QED

S.V. Airlie
02-06-2008, 09:45 AM
That's okay Norman.. What I wrote was a bit tongue in cheek but there is some truth to it.. So, go lurk...:rolleyes:

Keith Wilson
02-06-2008, 09:47 AM
An aside - for the past couple of weeks Romney has been portraying himself as the "real conservative" as opposed to McCain, who allegedly isn't conservative enough - and the die hard God, guns, and gays crowd seems to be buying it! It's absolutely incredible what people will swallow sometimes. A guy who ran as a very moderate centrist for Governor of Massachusetts in '02 tries to reinvent himself as a hard-core right-winger, and instead of concluding that he believes in nothing at all except "I want to be president", some people believed him - although apparently not enough.

The iron law of two party politics is that you rise within your party on the outside flank, then switch to the centre to win nationally. You won't carry your party's faithful from the centre, but you won't carry the nation from anywhere else.This has been true for the last century at least, but Lee Atwater and Karl Rove thought they had a way to evade it. Because voter turnout is historically so low in the US (around 50% average, lower in the South) they calculated if they got the more extreme folks all fired up, they would turn out in greater numbers and allow them to win without moving to the center, particularly if the campaign was so nasty that the apathetic apolitical swing voters got disgusted and stayed home. It worked for a while. It doesn't work any more, because it has created its own opposition.

S.V. Airlie
02-06-2008, 09:48 AM
An aside - for the past couple of weeks Romney has been portraying himself as the "real conservative" as opposed to McCain, who allegedly isn't conservative enough - and the die hard God, guns, and gays crowd seems to be buying it! It's absolutely incredible what people will swallow sometimes. A guy who ran as a very moderate centrist for Governor of Massachusetts in '02 tries to reinvent himself as a hard-core right-winger, and instead of concluding that he believes in nothing at all except "I want to be president", people believe him.

Not enough thought Keith... Just waiting for him to drop out...

Bruce Taylor
02-06-2008, 09:50 AM
now we've heard from Ian's spuire and cushion carrier... :)

I'm not defending Ian (who needs no help from me, in any case). It's just good political hygiene to address what a person actually says, rather than what you imagine "people like him" are likely to say.

Otherwise, you find yourself debating a chimera, an imaginary creature with the head of Ian M, the claws of patcox and the long stinging tail of ljb5.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
02-06-2008, 09:50 AM
Like I said - run on the flank to carry the party, switch to the centre to carry the country.

Mrleft8
02-06-2008, 09:51 AM
Norman, it may be good for the party if they (Obama and Clinton ) don't kill each other first...;)
Seems to me that Obama and Clinton are getting along a lot better than Romney and McCain or Romney and Huckleberry..... Romney's just plain old spiteful mean.....Kinda like.....Um......Wazziz name again...?..... Oh yeah....DUBYA.

S.V. Airlie
02-06-2008, 09:53 AM
Seems to me that Obama and Clinton are getting along a lot better than Romney and McCain or Romney and Huckleberry..... Romney's just plain old spiteful mean.....Kinda like.....Um......Wazziz name again...?..... Oh yeah....DUBYA.

You have been away recently Doug.. The fur and the feathers were flying for a few weeks.

Hey, Rush is gonna support Hillary if McCain gets the delegates/nod....Well, that's the rumor...:rolleyes:;)

Ian McColgin
02-06-2008, 10:00 AM
We are the Trinitarian Chimera that will smite the oppressors, defend the weak, and provide opportunity for the vigorous.

Phillip Allen
02-06-2008, 10:06 AM
We are the Trinitarian Chimera that will smite the oppressors, defend the weak, and provide opportunity for the vigorous.

What's Viagra got to do with this?

:)

ljb5
02-06-2008, 10:09 AM
You vill obey zee rules of zee National Democratic Party!

You think the Republican party doesn't have such rules also?



With respect to choosing the candidate for President the Republican party is more democratic than the Democratic party and the Democratic party is more republican than the Republican party.

An interesting observation, but the U.S. system of government (in fact, all systems of government) is replete with such anomalies. This is what happens in reality when the needs of practicality must be balanced with the goals of ideology.

We do not have (and have never claimed to have) a purely democratic system. Only a fool would think themselves clever for having recently figured this out.

Bob Smalser
02-06-2008, 10:10 AM
We are the Trinitarian Chimera that will smite the oppressors, defend the weak, and provide opportunity for the vigorous.

On the surface anyway. A detailed analysis of much of the Dem's economic fixes sound more like this:

"From each according to his ability....to each according to his need."

Chris Coose
02-06-2008, 10:11 AM
I love it when republicans point out the opposition's slip is showing when this republican administration and the one to come are just plain evil.

You guys get to carry two loads today and the heaviest bag, to which you can't let go, is an impossible burden.

Osborne Russell
02-06-2008, 10:20 AM
Awfully democratic of that party, eh?


If it's better for a nation to be a republic, not a democracy, why isn't it better for a political party?

LeeG
02-06-2008, 10:21 AM
time for compassion.

Milo Christensen
02-06-2008, 10:21 AM
. . . Only a fool would think themselves clever for having recently figured this out.

The ass end of the chimera strikes.

Osborne Russell
02-06-2008, 10:23 AM
Andrew, I like your sketch of capture the party from the flank, the election from the middle.

I don't understand parliamentary politics but it looks to me like amoebas playing bumper cars.

Ian McColgin
02-06-2008, 10:23 AM
Fortunatly most of the Democratic Party has figured out that many Republicans are not unreconstructed neo-fascist anti-constitutional corporate greed heads.

Now if the Republicans could just get over habitual red-baiting long enough to realize that even VT Sen. Bernie Saunders is very much pro-profit for competative business enterprises we could look for ways past the imperialistic klyptocracy.

S.V. Airlie
02-06-2008, 10:24 AM
The ass end of the chimera strikes.

Naw Milo, it was just a "no see um"
Get those a lot in wet springs...

Phillip Allen
02-06-2008, 10:25 AM
"An interesting observation, but the U.S. system of government (in fact, all systems of government) is replete with such anomalies. This is what happens in reality when the needs of practicality must be balanced with the goals of ideology.

We do not have (and have never claimed to have) a purely democratic system. Only a fool would think themselves clever for having recently figured this out."


I love this stuff from ill-jay...the first paragraph is what a confession from him sounds like.
The second paragraph is his standard ploy/distraction intended to place his "opponent" on the defense

Paul Pless
02-06-2008, 10:30 AM
Returning to lurking mode.Norman, speaking for myself, I respect what you bring to political dialogue. I may not often agree with you, but I'd not like to lose your voice here amongst the noise.

Osborne Russell
02-06-2008, 10:35 AM
It doesn't work any more, because it has created its own opposition.

Seems like they can't hang unless they style themselves as the opposition, which is tough after 8 years of power. That's why the Big Reds -- Rush Limbaugh, Josef Goebbels, et al -- turned against McCain, and started harumphing about sending Elder Romney to "change Washington."

I put it down to the influence of Federico Fellini.

Phillip Allen
02-06-2008, 10:37 AM
Wow Osborne...you better sit down and rest after that one :)

S.V. Airlie
02-06-2008, 10:39 AM
Who really is in power here? Okay, a Republican President or a Democratic Congress. One really can't do much without the other. So, everyone blames the president for what is wrong.. okay, he is the president and he is not blameless by a long shot. But, why aren't some people beginning to question Congress and spread some of the blame around?

Phillip Allen
02-06-2008, 10:41 AM
it has always been thus, Jamie

Tanbark Spanker
02-06-2008, 10:43 AM
Those wacky politicians would be funny if they weren't the embodiment of all that is evil. Don't you wish you could shrink them down and feed them to the cat? Run, Dick, run!

Keith Wilson
02-06-2008, 10:44 AM
I put it down to the influence of Federico Fellini.Dada politics? Why not?

S.V. Airlie
02-06-2008, 10:44 AM
Well, maybe it is about time we, as voters, look at the ENTIRE picture and remember that our government is divided into three segments.. As Ian wrote.. Checks and Balances. If the Pres steps over the line, Congress should respond accordingly etc....If Congress steps out of line, the president should respond accfordingly. If both step out of line.. the legal side should act accordingly.
If none of the above do what is expected.. boot them all out.

Not likely but....

LeeG
02-06-2008, 10:48 AM
Republicans aren't on the ascendant anymore so it's natural to criticize the Dems who are.

"oh yeah, he's got a bigger boat but he doesn't know anything about it!", etc.

I'm heartened that conservative Roscoe Bartlett is the only politician trying to educate Congress about peak oil. Maybe the next prez. could give him some recognition.

George Roberts
02-06-2008, 10:49 AM
"For the democratic process to work, one citizen / one vote has to be the operative principle. Michigan Democrats in their millions were disenfranchised because Michigan wanted it's day in the spotlight and moved up it's primary. Because Obama played by the rules, we didn't get to vote for him (a little thing we Republicans like to do here in Michigan). Disenfranchised."

I suspect most people have been disenfranchised simply by their location. In Oklahoma regardless of how I vote the Republican will get the electoral votes. Most states are that way.

If one wants to be franchised, the best thing to do is to move to a state where the election day outcome is uncertain. Had a few thousand people moved to Florida to become franchised our president could be different and the present might be different.

$200 million in campaign spending might be better spent in moving people. Maybe not.

Paul Pless
02-06-2008, 10:53 AM
Republicans aren't on the ascendant anymore so it's natural to criticize the Dems who are. I look forward to watching Bill Maher critique whoever the new admnistration turns out to be.:D

Phillip Allen
02-06-2008, 10:55 AM
there'll be a honeymoon period, whoever is elected (at least there ought to be one)

Keith Wilson
02-06-2008, 10:56 AM
One feature of our system of government is that a president can prevent congress from doing much unless there's a veto-proof majority, which there hasn't been for a very long time. Jamie, I say that if the majority in Congress is trying to go more or less in the right direction but is being stymied by the president, the problem is obvious.

John of Phoenix
02-06-2008, 10:57 AM
Milo:
Michigan Democrats in their millions were disenfranchised because Michigan wanted it's day in the spotlight and moved up it's primary. Because Obama played by the rules, we didn't get to vote for him (a little thing we Republicans like to do here in Michigan). Disenfranchised.
Let's make sure I understand this. The Michigan Democratic party decided it wanted "its day in the spotlight" and so "moved up its primary" despite warnings from the national party of the consequences - no campaigning, designated super delegates, etc. Clinton ended up as the only person on the ballot (by mistake) and the primary turned from "day in the spotlight" to "night in the dog house". Now you, as a republican, are POed because you didn't get to vote for Obama.

Is that right?

Phillip Allen
02-06-2008, 11:01 AM
Well John...it is illustrative of the sort of back-biting and underhanded stuff politicos are capable of...

S.V. Airlie
02-06-2008, 11:01 AM
John, Milo will answer this as he is from Mich.. However, what I did learn about the caucus in Iowa was one could switch parties for the caucus and vote.. Hence a Republican could vote in a Dem. caucus if he/she switched for that event.And afterwards, switch back.
Sounds a bit strange to me..

Milo Christensen
02-06-2008, 11:14 AM
. . . Is that right?

I'm actually standing up for the rights of my daughter, who wanted to vote for Obama.

I, of course, cast my 1/2 vote for Ron Paul.

Marilyn dislikes Bilary more than she likes any of the Republican candidates, so she wanted to help the Democrats do the right thing. Truth be told, she sort of likes Obama's message of change. If you think I'm conservative, you should have a political discussion with Marilyn someday.

My daughter thinks she could vote for McCain. You could have knocked me over with a feather when she said that.

It's very odd living in my house. 3 political junkies all with divergent agendas.

Cuyahoga Chuck
02-06-2008, 11:21 AM
Norman,
You are wasting too much ink on those Neocons. They are too thick-skulled to be swayed by sophisticated rhetoric. They know their chances in Novenber are lower than a snake's bellybutton and are just acting out to kill the pain.
Till Novermber you must be prepared for a lot of Neocon antics. They will interpret every Democratic sneeze and eyeblink as an impending disaster. Have no fear. The Dems could run Pogo Possum and still beat any chump the Neocons offer up.

"What, me worry?"

John of Phoenix
02-06-2008, 11:26 AM
It's very odd living in my house. 3 political junkies all with divergent agendas.
:D You don't get enough at home so come here for more abuse. :D

Keith Wilson
02-06-2008, 11:28 AM
Civility in the bilge ebbs and flows. Unfortunately if it ebbs too far, everyone will go away who actually wants to discuss things rather than participate in or watch brawls.

Phillip Allen
02-06-2008, 11:39 AM
Norman,
You are wasting too much ink on those Neocons. They are too thick-skulled to be swayed by sophisticated rhetoric. They know their chances in Novenber are lower than a snake's bellybutton and are just acting out to kill the pain.
Till Novermber you must be prepared for a lot of Neocon antics. They will interpret every Democratic sneeze and eyeblink as an impending disaster. Have no fear. The Dems could run Pogo Possum and still beat any chump the Neocons offer up.

"What, me worry?"


Chuck, do you actually BELIEVE that stuff you write? Everyone to the right of you is a NEOCON? Everyone not picked by THE party is a chump?

Instead of being possessed by a political junta you might try possessing yourself someday...is it possible? Are you up to it? This old earth is strewn with the bodies of the victims of that sort of thinking!

Keith Wilson
02-06-2008, 11:46 AM
Pogo Possum actually did run for president at one point. IIRC Albert Alligator was his campaign manager, and they had a portable smoke-filled room made from an outhouse and a bunch of Albert's seegars.

Phillip Allen
02-06-2008, 11:47 AM
(i miss Pogo)

Milo Christensen
02-06-2008, 11:49 AM
Pogo Possum actually did run for president at one point. . . .

Where do you think the neocons learned all they know about fear pandering?
We have met the enemy and he is us!

glenallen
02-06-2008, 11:52 AM
I wish Pogo was running now!

Keith Wilson
02-06-2008, 11:52 AM
I miss PogoMe too. I should dig out my father's old Pogo books and read about the campaign again. We certainly have plenty of modern equivalents of Simple J. Malarkey and the Jack Acid Society.

Here's a good one:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/49/Pogo_-_Earth_Day_1971_poster.jpg

elf
02-06-2008, 12:26 PM
Who really is in power here? Okay, a Republican President or a Democratic Congress. One really can't do much without the other. So, everyone blames the president for what is wrong.. okay, he is the president and he is not blameless by a long shot. But, why aren't some people beginning to question Congress and spread some of the blame around?

They certainly are in the progressive and even just liberal blogosphere.

Are you reading only the Republican? Did you listen to Diane Rehm this morning? The Republicans have quite a quandary and the conversation about it isn't particularly generous or understanding. Sure is interesting to listen in on, however.

For those who don't get Diane Rehm on their local public radio, try her web site for her program.

http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/index.php This morning she had 1 hour of Republicans doing a recap and discussing issues and the second hour of Democrats doing the same.

ljb5
02-06-2008, 12:50 PM
I love this stuff from ill-jay...the first paragraph is what a confession from him sounds like.
The second paragraph is his standard ploy/distraction intended to place his "opponent" on the defense

Gee, Phillip, I didn't think I would need to explain myself, but since you obviously don't get it, I'll have to spell it out for you.

The U.S. system of government, although commonly referred to as a democracy, is not. We do not have direct election of the President. Up until the early 1900s, we didn't have direct election of Senators.

We have never had a a "one person, one vote" system. At times, we have excluded large numbers of people from voting (slaves and women). We have had faithless electors and brokered conventions.

We have even had one president (Gerald Ford) who became president without ever winning a national election of any type.

We have had one president who actually lost the popular vote and won the electoral college vote through a system which both the state Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court declared to be unconstitutional.

Even the imposition of term limits is anti-democratic because it prevents the people from having the ultimate choice in who can be president.

Inside Congress, things are no more democratic. It does not take a majority to pass a bill --- in many cases, it takes a super-majority. In some cases, it takes a majority-of-majority for a bill even to be considered. We have vetoes, anonymous holds and blocked committees.

All of these things have happened, continue to happen and ARE NOT MY FAULT!

I did not confess to anything because I have nothing to confess!

This is the way our political system has worked for well over two hundred years. It did not suddenly become a less democratic system because of the 2008 Democratic primary system.

Cuyahoga Chuck
02-06-2008, 01:00 PM
Trust me, it's not the 'neocons' that have soured my milk, whatsoever. I'd gladly go toe-to-toe with anyone of ANY political persuasion, as long as they engage with ordinary decency and common respect. It's the 'others' that have put me off my feed :(

Whatever you wish to call the "righties" they have been swept from the battlefield under the leadership of Whatizname and have been reduced to sniping and other guerilla style activities.
Next year, when there is a Democratic president they will have this BIG target, will forget all about Bill Clinton's fly and will produce all kinds of childish accusations that will make Tylerdurden look like a middle-of-the-roader.
Rest up. The next presidency will be much more defensable than the last. And more fun,too.

"Gotta' go! The Cuyahoga is 4 feet over flood and it's raining! "

Phillip Allen
02-06-2008, 01:08 PM
:) .

Cuyahoga Chuck
02-06-2008, 01:09 PM
Chuck, do you actually BELIEVE that stuff you write? Everyone to the right of you is a NEOCON? Everyone not picked by THE party is a chump?

Instead of being possessed by a political junta you might try possessing yourself someday...is it possible? Are you up to it? This old earth is strewn with the bodies of the victims of that sort of thinking!

When Neoconism was in flower a lot of you guys plucked the posies. Now that you have all gotten a rash from it you are in a state of denial.
Be forwarned. A lot of you folks helped Whatizname get elected and God knows who you are.
Sackcloth and ashes might help you but, I doubt it. And there may be a chapter about you folks in "Dante's Inferno". Check it out.

Milo Christensen
02-06-2008, 01:11 PM
. . . "Gotta' go! The Cuyahoga is 4 feet over flood and it's raining! "

:p Should keep the fires from breaking out on the river for a few days. :p

Take care, nasty weather coming your way.

BrianW
02-06-2008, 01:52 PM
Man there are some angry folks here! Just look at some of the responses to a very small criticism of the democratic party. Very bitter indeed.

Ian McColgin
02-06-2008, 02:21 PM
I'm curious as to whether the "angry folks here" are those who explained the democratic party or other responses from those who were not explaining the party, perhaps are not democrats.

elf
02-06-2008, 02:25 PM
And a Republican pundit weighs in:

The Repudiation of Rove
__
By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, February 6, 2008; A19

John McCain had a surprising but pleasant evening last night -- watching Mitt Romney go down to defeat in nearly every contest and encountering a newly victorious but ultimately unnominatable Mike Huckabee all across the Bible Belt. McCain's successes so far reflect not only his appeal as a candidate but also the bankruptcy of the conservative agenda and political strategy that have steered the Republicans for many years.

McCain's victories have been chiefly a triumph of biography over ideology.

Blessed, in Romney, with an opponent who approaches the Platonic Ideal of Inauthenticity, McCain has racked up primary-season successes more because of the personal contrasts between the two candidates than because of differences of program. But his personal merits have yet to sway those Republicans who classify themselves in the polls as very conservative.

A more direct affront to the Republican strategy devised by Karl Rove -- to build support within the party's right-wing base and then try to win over just enough moderates to carry elections -- cannot be imagined.

McCain's whole campaign is anti-Rovian. His core supporters are Republican moderates and Republican-inclined independents, and then he picks off enough conservatives to prevail. Even if he didn't have a history of rocky relations with various right-wing leaders, the very trajectory of his campaign would pose a threat to the conservative movement, notwithstanding that McCain is philosophically an heir to Barry Goldwater.

Moreover, McCain's successes have not been accompanied by an ideological reorientation within Republican ranks. The polls do not show any diminution of self-described conservatives within the party or any notable growth of the moderate faction.

So how have Republican conservatives managed to be on the losing end of so many primaries?

It's not just that the conservative vote has been split between Romney and Huckabee. It's also that conservatives have run out of agenda.

With his preemptive war and seemingly permanent occupation in Iraq, and his attempt to privatize Social Security, George W. Bush pushed American conservatism past the point where the American people were willing to go -- pushed them, in fact, to the point where they recoiled at the conservative project. And with that, American conservatism shuddered to a halt. In the 2005-06 congressional session, Republicans still controlled both houses of Congress, yet they introduced no major legislation.

This exhaustion of conservatism has been apparent all along in the Republican presidential contest, where the chief point of agreement among the leading candidates has been to make permanent both the Bush tax cuts for the rich and our occupation of Iraq. The conservative agenda has been winnowed down to supporting what remains of Bushism. That's not only a losing formula for November, it also means that intellectually, conservatism is running on empty.

Huckabee's legions have their own cause -- a pious populism that doesn't have much sway in urban areas. But consider what animates conservatives' support for Mitt Romney. It's not that they have warmed to his shifting agenda or his elusive charisma. They simply hate John McCain, who threatens their cosmology by waging a campaign that does not put them at the center of the political universe. That, certainly, is what animates Rush Limbaugh and the right-wing talkocracy, who feel their power ebbing with each McCain success.

Indeed, Romney's ability to continue in this race is almost entirely a function of the breadth of the animus toward McCain on the Republican right -- and his ability to fund his own campaign.

In California particularly, conservatives' fear and loathing of moderates have been raised to new heights by McCain's most prominent endorser, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The Governator's proposals these days are far more likely to win the endorsement of Democrats in the state Legislature, while Republicans -- furious at his policies and furious that he bypasses them to deal with the majority Democrats -- scarcely consider them. In McCain, California's insular conservatives, an embattled and shrinking minority in their own state, see a version of Arnold writ large.

For them, as for movement conservatives across the land, a vote for Romney is simply a vote for their own relevance.

meyersonh@washpost.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020502878.html

elf
02-06-2008, 02:26 PM
Man there are some angry folks here! Just look at some of the responses to a very small criticism of the democratic party. Very bitter indeed.

I don't see angry Democrats here. I see misinformed posters who aren't willing to be corrected.

That sort of behavior is far more likely to make people angry than party affiliation.

Kaa
02-06-2008, 02:29 PM
I don't see angry Democrats here.

Maybe my vision is getting bad, but Cuyahoga Chuck looks like a pretty angry Democrat to me.

Kaa

ljb5
02-06-2008, 02:40 PM
Maybe my vision is getting bad, but Cuyahoga Chuck looks like a pretty angry Democrat to me.

Kaa

Phillip Allen used to have a signature line which read, "If you're not angry, you're not paying attention."

Chris Coose
02-06-2008, 02:41 PM
Man there are some angry folks here! Just look at some of the responses to a very small criticism of the democratic party. Very bitter indeed.


From 2000-2006 when republicans ruled, this country took its most drastic turn towrd the ****ter that I have witnessed.
The motives behind their strategy were none to cursed.
The past 2 years have been almost less tollerable because of the executive stranglehold by way of iraq and ignorance. We have continued to decend even more dramatically because of the policies of the 6 previous years.
Anybody remotely associated to this debacle is a dummy in my book.

So when the few apologists for the past and perhaps future agenda would like to take a poke I take contempt.

You'd ought to stick to making thigs right in you own yard. ou have no infulence in mine and I consider you a trespasser.

ljb5
02-06-2008, 02:44 PM
Just look at some of the responses to a very small criticism of the democratic party. Very bitter indeed.

The criticism of the Democratic party (although predicatable) was misguided and unsupported.

As I showed, such criticism could just as well be aimed at the federal government, the state governments, the Republican party, or any political system anywhere in the world.

There is no such thing as a perfect political system, a perfect electoral system, a perfect primary system or perfection of any system which deals with reality.

The responses have not been angry. We have simply pointed out that it is unreasonable to apply an impossible standard to one group while refusing to recognize that the issues are universal.

skuthorp
02-06-2008, 03:14 PM
Quote ljb5
"The U.S. system of government, although commonly referred to as a democracy, is not. We do not have direct election of the President. Up until the early 1900s, we didn't have direct election of Senators.
We have never had a a "one person, one vote" system. At times, we have excluded large numbers of people from voting (slaves and women). We have had faithless electors and brokered conventions.
We have even had one president (Gerald Ford) who became president without ever winning a national election of any type.
We have had one president who actually lost the popular vote and won the electoral college vote through a system which both the state Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court declared to be unconstitutional.
Even the imposition of term limits is anti-democratic because it prevents the people from having the ultimate choice in who can be president.
Inside Congress, things are no more democratic. It does not take a majority to pass a bill --- in many cases, it takes a super-majority. In some cases, it takes a majority-of-majority for a bill even to be considered. We have vetoes, anonymous holds and blocked committees.
All of these things have happened, continue to happen"

And you want to export this basicly flawed system to other nations?

Kaa
02-06-2008, 03:18 PM
And you want to export this basicly flawed system to other nations?

"Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried" -- Winston Churchill.

Kaa

Keith Wilson
02-06-2008, 03:27 PM
If anyone has a better idea, a flawless system, please let us know about it. Last I checked, everything built by human beings had flaws.

Paul Pless
02-06-2008, 03:56 PM
The criticism of the Democratic party (although predicatable) was misguided and unsupported.I'm of the opinion that no political institution should be held to be above either criticism or skepticism.

Keith Wilson
02-06-2008, 04:02 PM
Originally Posted by ljb5: The criticism of the Democratic party was misguided and unsupported.
Originally Posted by Paul Pless:No political institution should be above either criticism or skepticism.I think both these statements are true.

crawdaddyjim50
02-06-2008, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by ljb5
There is no such thing as a perfect political system, a perfect electoral system, a perfect primary system or perfection of any system which deals with reality.

The responses have not been angry. We have simply pointed out that it is unreasonable to apply an impossible standard to one group while refusing to recognize that the issues are universal.

Hope you remember that when the shoe is upon the other foot.

I would also like to compliment you on your use of Saul Alinsky's rules of engagement for political discussions. You have learned them well.

Cuyahoga Chuck
02-06-2008, 09:25 PM
Maybe my vision is getting bad, but Cuyahoga Chuck looks like a pretty angry Democrat to me.

Kaa

I'm not much for smiley faces but I'm having fun watching you Neocons try to gin up smarmy one liners to masque the fact that you folks backed a candidate who is a gold-plated failure. You know it, he knows it. So many of his intiatives went sour historians are having trouble toting up the bill. He's put the kibosh on the Neocon's agenda for the next fifty years. Thanks be to God.
Not to worry! You'll always have Bill Clinton's fly to use for cover when the going gets tough.

"Is this fun or what?"

Steve Paskey
02-06-2008, 10:02 PM
The Democratic Party is NOT the government, it's a political party, a more or less 'private' organization that makes up it's own rules, just as the Republican party does. It's an organization composed of people with at least a center of mass, when it comes to basic principles (with wide variations, just like the Republican Party) whose objective is to elect candidates to public office. Consequently, it does what it needs to do in it's own common interest, and the system it presently is using (super-delegates and all that) is what the party believes is in it's best interests.

The problem with that logic is that primary elections are conducted by PUBLIC officials at PUBLIC expense. The costs can be huge: when California passed a bill moving its primary to Super Tuesday, it was estimated that the cost of holding the election would be between $60 and $90 million. And that's at a time when state government programs are being slashed to control a deficit. I haven't heard of anyone from either party volunteering to pony up for yesterday's event.

If the Democrats or Republicans want to hold a private caucus at their own expense, great: they can follow any rules they want. But the taxpayers pay for a primary, even if they don't belong to the party and aren't permitted to vote. Under those circumstances, the party should be expected to comply with certain rules, one of which should be a ban on super-delegates. If a party doesn't like it, they can pay for the election or hold a caucus.

That said, I think "winner-take-all" primaries are even less "democratic" than super-delegates, even if that is the way the electoral college works.

elf
02-06-2008, 10:16 PM
Well, Steve, there's a nice project for you as a citizen - get the system changed so it makes sense.

BrianW
02-06-2008, 10:57 PM
I'm not much for smiley faces but I'm having fun watching you Neocons...

Who are the neo-cons here?

Cuyahoga Chuck
02-06-2008, 11:35 PM
Who are the neo-cons here?

Anyone who pulled the lever for Karl Rove and his sidekick, Whatizname. Unless I'm having a senior moment, it seemed there was a whole brigade of acolytes willing to vigorously defend those two. It looks like most have gone on to other pursuits. Like monitoring sexual liasons that took place in the White House about a decade ago.
Oh well, and idle mind.... etc.

High C
02-07-2008, 12:16 AM
For all that talk a few months ago about a brokered GOP convention....

Oops, it looks like the reality is turning out to be just the opposite. The GOP seems to already have chosen its candidate while the Dems grow fearful. Hillary is now spending her own money (hers?...really?) on the campaign while McCain saves up for the real race in November. Don't dump those Neocon Nation Savings Bonds just yet, Chuck. ;)

From: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080206232326.2nxp3bd8&show_article=1

"Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean on Wednesday voiced concern over the prospect of a brokered convention at the end of the party's White House nominating contests.

"The idea that we can afford to have a big fight at the convention and then win the race in the next eight weeks, I think, is not a good scenario," Dean said according to excerpts of an interview with NY1 television."......

Memphis Mike
02-07-2008, 12:51 AM
Ya know what.......I don't really give a **** anymore. I'm tired.

Milo Christensen
02-07-2008, 04:50 AM
. . . I think "winner-take-all" primaries are even less "democratic" than super-delegates . . .

Scenario: Mr. Obama takes 51% of the vote in a state primary that apportions delegates. Mrs. & Mr. Clinton take 49% of the vote, and all the super delegates elected in previous elections (almost a third the total) vote for Mrs. & Mr. Clinton.

This all seems so innately conservative to me and smacks of oligarchy. Please explain the democracy part here.

Keith Wilson
02-07-2008, 09:40 AM
Scenario 1: In state A, Mr. McCain takes 51% of the vote, and Mr. Romney takes 49%. All of the delegates from that state go to McCain. In state B, Romney gets 100% of the vote and all the delegates. If the states have equal populations and an equal number of delgates, Romney got 74.5% of the votes and 50% of the delegates; McCain got 25.5% of the votes and 50% of the delegates.

Scenario 2: In one state with a population of 10 million and 100 delegates, Romney gets 51% of the vote and all the delegates. In another state with a population of 9 million and 90 delegates, McCain gets 100% of the vote and all the delegates.

Romney: 5.1 million votes, 100 delegates.
Mc Cain: 13.9 million votes, 90 delegates.

Milo Christensen
02-07-2008, 09:53 AM
But neither Romney or McCain gets any super delegates attempting to thwart the will of the people in that state, right?

The rest of your point is well taken.

Keith Wilson
02-07-2008, 10:03 AM
I think they instituted those changes after McGovern ran in 1972, to provide a brake on popular enthusiasm in the primaries and caucuses for a candidate that proved too far from the mainstream to win in the general election. Primaries and caucuses normally draw True Believers, and sometimes they'll pick an unelectable candidate. I don't know if it's a good idea or not, but the intent was to introduce professional opinion and political calculation into the process. Remember ACB's Iron Law of Two-Party Politics: edge wins the nomination, center wins the election.

Milo Christensen
02-07-2008, 10:13 AM
Thread drift: Do you think McCain, running at the center edge of the Republican party, violates ACB's Iron Law?

Perhaps ACB's law doesn't take into account the third great party we have here, the Independents?

Milo Christensen
02-07-2008, 10:20 AM
I fail to see what you're bitching about, Milo....

Apologies if it sounds like bitching, just carrying on a little discussion on a topic I find interesting. As I said, Keith presented an excellent point about winner-take-all primaries.


. . . Then again, nobody is forcing anyone to be a Democrat or Republican. . . .

Is this a great country or what? I've been both. Notice the use of the past tense.

Keith Wilson
02-07-2008, 10:29 AM
Do you think McCain, running at the center edge of the Republican party, violates ACB's Iron Law? Center edge? Maybe he is, but his positions on almost all issues are closer to the Republican mainstream than not. He's certainly quite far to the right in a lot of respects. I think the surprisingly shrill conservative opposition to him originates in his disagreements with the Anointed of Heaven on a couple of high-profile issues, and in the fact that he doesn't think that all illegal immigrants are necessarily the Spawn of Satan.

Ian McColgin
02-07-2008, 10:40 AM
The shriller of the neocons are every bit as textually anal in their pursuit of heresy as some of the idiotic fights between the Maoist-Trotskyit-Workrs-Alliance and the Alliance-for-Trotskyite-Working-Maoists or as some converting from more evolutionary threads might put it: How many commissars can dance on the head of a pin?

Keith Wilson
02-07-2008, 10:47 AM
. . . the idiotic fights between the Maoist-Trotskyite-Workers-Alliance and the Alliance-for-Trotskyite-Working-Maoists LOL! :D Ain't that the truth! Baptists historically did the same thing over theological issues.

There's a really good novel by Mario Vargas Llosa, Historia de Mayta (in English The Real Life of Alejandro Mayta) set in Peru in the '50s, in which the main character is a member of a revolutionary Trotskyite group with twelve members. They have an ideological disagreement and split into two rival groups.

Norm, I think you're quite right. Who else are they going to vote for, anyway? It's kind of curious that they've completely forgotten that Romney was considerably to the left of McCain when he ran for governor in 2002, but I think it's a moot point now.

elf
02-07-2008, 11:02 AM
Oh, and while you're at it, remind us again about Obama's "present" votes in Ill.

John of Phoenix
02-07-2008, 11:21 AM
The reality, of course, is far different. He was in DC, and could have voted, but found it easier to take a pass. If he voted with the bipartisan majority, he’d make the conservative Republican base mad. If he voted with the right, Dems would spend the next nine months beating him over the head with his vote against tax rebates, an extension of unemployment benefits, increased subsidies for home energy costs, and increased relief for low-income seniors and disabled veterans.

So he decided not to show up for work.
I'll bet this doesn't go away. Romney and Dems alike are going to to poke him in the eye with this one.

S.V. Airlie
02-07-2008, 11:42 AM
I agree basically with Norman. McCain made a mistake. Not the first time... Is it gonna hurt in the long run.. maybe..

Needless to say, I have been hearing some sound bites.. okay, some out of context until I googled them andf got the full story.
Obama speaks well. I can't agree more. I am a bit concerned with saome of his ideas.. or I'll use the word, how I interpret some of his ideas.
I won't list them all but I will hit education.

First, I do agree that teachers should be paid more overall. The amount is obviously based on where the teachers are. I think CT. pays them quite well overall. What I am hearing is Obama's wish ( based on how I interpret what he is saying ) is that the Feds should take more of a hands on approach to how much teachers should be paid nationwide. I prefer less fed gov. involvement myself. I do not think a state, especially a poorer state should be dictated to regarding teacher's salaries unless the Feds pay for it.. Which suggests that all of us will pay for it again...A double whammy.. property taxes for education combined with increase on our feder5al taxes.

I guess what I am hearing are a lot of great ideas but no indication as to how to pay for it.
I will now hear from those who say.." well, if we get out of Iraq we can afford it." I don't see that happening soon and therefore, I'm not going to count the bucks that might be transferred from Iraq to say education before they actually are...
I'm discussing now, within one or two years down the road.

ljb5
02-10-2008, 04:36 PM
So what's the difference betwen a "super delegate" in the Democratic Party and an unpledged, automatic delegate in the Republican Party?

Milo Christensen
02-10-2008, 05:56 PM
So what's the difference betwen a "super delegate" in the Democratic Party and an unpledged, automatic delegate in the Republican Party?

Rule 13 (a) (2) (http://www.gop.com/images/2008_Call_FINAL.pdf)should answer the Republican side of the question.

ljb5
02-10-2008, 08:19 PM
Rule 13 (a) (2) (http://www.gop.com/images/2008_Call_FINAL.pdf)should answer the Republican side of the question.

Yup, exactly what I thought. No real difference.

More interesting, the Republicans who complain about super delegates in the Democratic Party are either raving hypocrites or unaware that the same thing is going on in their own party.

Paul Pless
02-10-2008, 08:33 PM
Yup, exactly what I thought. No real difference.

More interesting, the Republicans who complain about super delegates in the Democratic Party are either raving hypocrites or unaware that the same thing is going on in their own party.Actually there is a rather fundamental difference in the two parties with respect to these types of delegates. There are far more 'super delegates' proportionally speaking in the Democratic Party, than there are 'unpledged delegates' in the Republican Party, thus the possibility for more disparate outcomes, from the so called popular vote is much more likely possible in the Democratic Party than in the Republican Party.

Democratic Super Delegates make up 20% of all delegates, whereas, unpledged delegates to the Republican National Convention contribute only 4% to the parties vote count.

ljb5, Don't you have a strong statistical and mathematical background? So you knew this logical arguement already, right??

Paul Pless
02-10-2008, 08:44 PM
Norman, that's possibly true. However, the original contention of this thread was that despite the early speculation that the Republican Party would have some type of 'brokered convention'; its actually beginning to appear as though the process of selecting the candidate for the Democratic Party could be much more controversial this year. Do you not agree?

And actually Norman, the question ljb5 posed was not about the individual parties' processes as a whole, but the differences between the two parties' candidates? Thus, I think I answered correctly.

ljb5
02-10-2008, 08:53 PM
Actually there is a rather fundamental difference in the two parties with respect to these types of delegates.

First, Norman is right about the effect of the winner-take-all system.

Second, a mere difference in the number of delegates is not "fundamental."

ljb5
02-10-2008, 09:00 PM
And actually Norman, the question ljb5 posed was not about the individual parties' processes as a whole, but the differences between the two parties' candidates? Thus, I think I answered correctly.

The point I was making, Paul, is that neither party has a perfectly democratic system of selecting candidates which precisely reflects the will of the people.

However, for some strange reason, only certain Republicans seem amazed to discover this rather obvious fact.

Not only that, but they seem to think it's only a problem for the Democrats. As always, it's "Okay When Republicans Do It."

Paul Pless
02-10-2008, 09:09 PM
The point I was making, Paul, is that neither party has a perfectly democratic system of selecting candidates which precisely reflects the will of the people.I understand your point, I concede it, and I agree with you. For what its worth I find party politics in America to be only slightly less disgusting than bipartisan politics. Given that, would you care to answer this question that I've posed three times on this thread, seemingly without a member of the left being able to answer without disparaging the other side.
However, the original contention of this thread was that despite the early speculation that the Republican Party would have some type of 'brokered convention'; its actually beginning to appear as though the process of selecting the candidate for the Democratic Party could be much more controversial this year. Do you not agree?

elf
02-10-2008, 09:17 PM
Gonna be interesting to see if it really ends up that way, Paul.

I suppose we'll be a lot clearer on that when we get past the next set of primaries. Until then, it's up in the air.

ljb5
02-10-2008, 09:25 PM
Given that, would you care to answer this question that I've posed three times on this thread, seemingly without a member of the left being able to answer without disparaging the other side.

I wasn't aware you asked a question....

Do I agree that the Democratic nominee seems to still be undecided whilst the Republican nominee seems to already be decided?

Yes, it does appear to be that way.

This does not seem to me to be an indication of any "hijinks" or "malarky" or "shennanigans" or anything else.

That's just the way the cookie crumbles.

In fact, some people might argue that a healthy selection process does not come to a conclusion in the first half.

elf
02-10-2008, 09:44 PM
I'm C&P this because some will not have a login at the NYT.

Paul, this summary this evening may shed some further light on the path to a brokered, or not brokered, Democratic convention:


February 11, 2008
The Caucus
As Voting Pattern Emerges, So Does Need to Break It

By JOHN HARWOOD
Senator Barack Obama scored impressive weekend victories over Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in several Democratic presidential nomination contests. He is well positioned for this week’s voting in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. But neither candidate has achieved what is most important for deciding their battle. That is breaking the pattern of voter preferences that has structured their competition so far.

That pattern — driven by demographics and electoral mechanics — has proven more powerful than momentum or the candidates’ policy messages. In the quest for delegates over the next three months, they will be wrestling the pattern as much as each other.

The pattern stems in part from what is sometimes called identity politics — not surprising in a race with two history-making candidates.

Mrs. Clinton, of New York, who would be the first woman to be president, has dominated among women; according to exit polls, they have consistently constituted 55 percent or more of the Democratic electorate. Mr. Obama, of Illinois, who would be the first black president, has dominated among blacks by even more lopsided margins.

But with the exception of a few states like South Carolina and Georgia, where blacks represented a majority and Mr. Obama won, they have represented a far smaller share of the vote.

Mrs. Clinton, drawing on memories of prosperity during her husband’s presidency, has held steady advantages among Hispanics, older voters and blue-collar whites. Mr. Obama’s inspirational “Yes We Can” message has produced an edge among young people, independents, college graduates and higher-income Democrats.

Those disparate collections can to some degree be distinguished using labels — Mrs. Clinton’s as more moderate, Mr. Obama’s as more liberal. But “the ideological differences clearly seem to be driven by demographics,” said Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster.

Those differences have helped define another important element.

While Mrs. Clinton has performed best in primaries, like New Hampshire and California, Mr. Obama has excelled in caucuses that turn on organizational prowess, from the kickoff event in Iowa to the Washington and Nebraska contests over the weekend.

That is partly because Mr. Obama invested more heavily in grass-roots organization in his bid to overcome Mrs. Clinton’s establishment advantages. Moreover, the time and information required for caucus participation attract demographic elites drawn to the Illinois senator in the first place — his “Starbucks Democrats,” rather than Mrs. Clinton’s “Dunkin’ Donuts Democrats,” as Chris Lehane, a former aide to Al Gore, puts it.

Thus it is easy to project coming areas of strength for each candidate.

On Tuesday, Mr. Obama can expect to dominate in heavily black Washington, D.C., and he’s favored in Maryland, which has an above-average proportion of both blacks and college graduates.

Mrs. Clinton has a better chance in Virginia, where working class Nascar fans remain an important constituency.

On Feb. 19, Mr. Obama will be favored in Hawaii, because he grew up there and because it is a caucus state. Mrs. Clinton has a better shot in Wisconsin, where the black vote is relatively small and the blue-collar vote relatively large.

But Mrs. Clinton’s most promising venues lie in the big March 4 primaries. One is Ohio, an emblem of Midwest economic change; the other is Texas, where Hispanics represent a dominant force.

Mr. Obama may somewhat offset her strengths with more money for advertising and rules in both states that allow independents to vote. Independents may not vote, however, in Pennsylvania’s April 22 primary — another Clinton target.

Either candidate, however, may yet forge a new pattern.

“Barack has to drive an economic message that connects with the individual hopes and fears of voters,” said Carter Eskew, a Democratic strategist. Mrs. Clinton aimed a dose of inspiration at upscale voters with her lyrical remarks the night of the Feb. 5 primaries — and has quieted the attacks by former President Bill Clinton that so offended Democratic elites.

One factor muted thus far could also change the pattern: momentum. Tad Devine, a top aide for candidates from Walter Mondale to John Kerry, calls this slower-paced part of the Democratic race Stage 4. The first stage was 2007 fund-raising; the second was the kickoff contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina; the third was the 22-state contest on Feb. 5.

The front-loaded calendar jammed the first three phases so closely together as to blunt momentum from one state to the next. But “momentum can be the driving force in this stage,” Mr. Devine said, since voters have more time to absorb who is moving ahead and who is lagging.

If he is right, Mr. Obama could gain an edge beginning this week.


Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

George Jung
02-10-2008, 10:04 PM
However, for some strange reason, only certain Republicans seem amazed to discover this rather obvious fact.

Not only that, but they seem to think it's only a problem for the Democrats.

Do I agree that the Democratic nominee seems to still be undecided whilst the Republican nominee seems to already be decided?

Yes, it does appear to be that way. - ljb5

Isn't that the 'true' difference - this election cycle? The superdelegates, and their relative percentages, may be a legitimate point of contention, open to debate and criticism - but at least this cycle, for the Republicans, it's a non- issue. Not so for the Democrats. Tight, contentious race, with Superdelegates perhaps deciding the outcome, perhaps not way the populace will support.

And - "As always, it's "Okay When Republicans Do It.™" may be 'catchy', but it's inaccurate, sloganistic, and emblematic of what I, and many others, dislike about the Major Political Parties and the way they do business.

ljb5
02-10-2008, 10:24 PM
Isn't that the 'true' difference - this election cycle? The superdelegates, and their relative percentages, may be a legitimate point of contention, open to debate and criticism - but at least this cycle, for the Republicans, it's a non- issue.

The real tragedy of this race is that one of the two candidates will be picked by Republicans..... a voting demographic which hasn't shown a lot of wisdom in the last several years.

Milo Christensen
02-11-2008, 06:33 AM
Delightful op-ed piece in the WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120269002843257513.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)this morning from the lawyer who represented Bush in front of the Supremes in Bush v Gore. Enjoy.



These superdelegates, Byzantine hyper-egalitarian Democratic Party delegate selection formulas, and the fact that many delegates are selected at conventions or by caucuses rather than primaries, combine to offer the distinct possibility that by convention time the candidate leading in the popular vote in the primaries will be trailing in the delegate count.
How ironic. For over seven years the Democratic Party has fulminated against the Electoral College system that gave George W. Bush the presidency over popular-vote winner Al Gore in 2000. But they have designed a Rube Goldberg nominating process that could easily produce a result much like the Electoral College result in 2000: a winner of the delegate count, and thus the nominee, over the candidate favored by a majority of the party's primary voters.

Cuyahoga Chuck
02-11-2008, 09:05 AM
Delightful op-ed piece in the WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120269002843257513.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)this morning from the lawyer who represented Bush in front of the Supremes in Bush v Gore. Enjoy.

The Wall Street Journal has an outstanding NEWS organization but it's ed-page is a sinkhole of rightwing thinking.
The guy who wrote that piece is taking a whizz into the wind. The Dems will win sure as hell. If getting his stuff onto ther WSJ ed-page makes him happy so be it. It won't make a bit of difference in the end.l

elf
02-11-2008, 09:34 AM
No question. Hillary and McCain are the pols here.

Keith Wilson
02-11-2008, 10:27 AM
(From the WSJ editorial) Surely no one familiar with her (Clinton's) history would doubt that her take-no-prisoners campaign team would do whatever it took to capture the nomination, including all manner of challenges to Obama delegates and tidal waves of litigation.I do. Consider that everyone in the Democratic party that wasn't acually getting paid by her campaign would be 100% against it. Democrats may be fractious, but thay're not complete idiots.

S.V. Airlie
02-11-2008, 10:58 AM
Norman, I'm sure that you are correct re: Dems are way too smart to be stupid casting superballots for the underdog.. But I am gonna look at this from several different perspectives/scenerios.

Current polls.. as in current feeling as polls are really not worth much yet, show Obama defeating McCain in Nov. Sim. polls basically show that a match-up between Hillary and McCain falls within the pwercentage of error. Close enough not to negate her as a viable candidate against McCain.
These super delegates are gonna be looking out for themselves first.. The party second, and the country third. I sense that the votes cast for either Obama or Hillary will be cast with the delgates looking to their future and the amount of pull they might have with whoever wins the nomination and possibly the presidency.

For the most part, the delegates are political animals and as many think, survival, their survival, comes first.

Osborne Russell
02-11-2008, 11:11 AM
I don't know if each party has done everything the other party has done, but I'm sure that either party would do anything the other would do.

But what they do in running their party is different than what they do when running the country.

Bob Adams
02-11-2008, 11:15 AM
Heard Bill Clinton speak at Battle Grove Democratic Club yesterday (yes ill jay, I am a member). My impression was he's more interested in getting back in the White House than he is putting his wife there.

S.V. Airlie
02-11-2008, 11:19 AM
And Bob, does that surprise you?

elf
02-11-2008, 12:25 PM
I do. Consider that everyone in the Democratic party that wasn't acually getting paid by her campaign would be 100% against it. Democrats may be fractious, but thay're not complete idiots.

Boy, Keith, I wish I was as confident of that as you seem to be. At this point I still can't see the Democrats doing the straight up honest thing. I'm not sure whether it's just Hillary and her sidekick that I don't trust any further than I could lift them, or whether I'm not confident of the Obama campaign either. If Obama continues to turn down the big donors, and continues to steer the conversation to issues and away from sniping, I might become a little more trusting.

But politics is politics, Repug or Democratic. Winning is important to these people personally. They do have a huge emotional investment, a lifetime of such investment, in winning.

Whether the American populace is willing to consistently vote for the person who takes the high road or not is still unclear, to me.

Bob Adams
02-11-2008, 05:55 PM
And Bob, does that surprise you?

No, not a bit. Misses the interns, I guess.