tag:www.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk/blogs/mooshinator//2598 2008-05-22T20:18:08Z Movable Type Pro 4.21-en tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.196546 2008-05-22T20:18:08Z 2008-05-22T20:18:08Z

mooshinator
Here's what the American Heritage Dictionary says the definition of "disfranchise" is (from www.dictionary.com):

"To deprive of a privilege, an immunity, or a right of citizenship, especially the right to vote; disenfranchise."

Nobody in Florida or Michigan is getting deprived of a citizenship right.  This is the nominating process for a political party.  Hillary Clinton's comparisons to past Civil Rights struggles is so far-fetched as to be insulting.  These past struggles were about race and gender discrimination and equal protection under the law and under the constitution.  This issue of Florida and Michigan is about a political party that did something stupid.  What do I mean by that?  I mean that it's not very smart for the Democratic Party to go piss people off in two states.  That's all this is about.

There's no disenfranchisement here, folks, so move along.  If the Democratic Party wants to exclude two states from it's nominating process, it can.  Nobody's rights are getting violated.  The folks in Florida and Michigan can, if they so feel like it, go vote Republican in the fall while they stick their tongues out at the Democratic Party and say "NANANANABOOBOO, this is what you get!"  We hope that doesn't happen, and that's why it wasn't smart for the Democratic Party to completely exclude two states from the nomination process.

In my personal opinion, the best approach is to do what the Republicans did and just dock each delegate 1/2 a vote.  It's not a perfect solution, but it minimizes the number of folks you piss off.  The delegate allocation is all screwy anyway; states that go late get extra delegates, territories that don't vote in the general election still participate in the primary, etc, etc...  There's no exact math to how many delegates each state gets, so just dock them 1/2.  Or dock them 1/3.  I don't care, but don't just remove them from the process.

Does the Democratic Party have the right to exclude FL and MI completely?  Sure, and nobody would be getting disenfranchised.  Doesn't mean it's the smart thing to do.

Oh and while I'm complaining, let me make another point.  There's no one, single, overriding "fair" way to split the delegates between Clinton and Obama.  That's all there is to it.  For all intents and purposes, Florida and Michigan did not have nominating contests.  The argument that the delegates should be seated based on the results of the January voting seems somewhat sensible, but there is certainly no moral imperative to do it that way.  The argument that if you don't abide by the vote you are disrespecting (not disenfranchising, see above) those who voted can be just as easily turned around to say that if you DO use the vote to split the delegates you are disrespecting those who stayed home because the vote wouldn't count.

I'm not saying that going by the vote isn't reasonable, particularly in Florida.  What I'm saying is that there's no moral imperative to do so and that there's no reason that, say, a 50/50 split is any more or less fair than choosing to use a vote that everyone knew wouldn't count.  The only thing you can do at this point is sit down and come to an agreement between the Clinton campaign, the Obama campaign, and the Florida and Michigan delegations.  If they all agree on something, great.  If they don't, they better keep working.

So stop pretending there's a moral high ground to be found somewhere.  There isn't.  The Democratic Party has already disrespected the voters of Florida and Michigan and there's nothing that can be done to undo that completely.  Neither state has been able to hold a primary or caucus that has any meaning so stop pretending there's some extra value in respecting the rights of people who voted in a fake contest over those who didn't participate because they had every reason to think their vote wouldn't count.

Everybody in Florida and Michigan got disrespected.  Nobody got disenfranchised.  There's no fair way out, and there's no moral high ground to take in choosing one way over another.  The only thing that can be done is to compromise in a way that pisses the fewest people off.
]]> tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.193982 2008-05-08T17:13:53Z 2008-05-08T17:13:53Z

mooshinator
At this point, everyone assumes that Obama is going to win a gigantic share of black votes in the primaries.  He's been winning an ever-increasing share of black votes and this transcends across all other demographics (sex, education, income).  Nobody talks about these voters not supporting Hillary in the general election.  Well, people talk about it in the context of Hillary winning via superdelegate and being viewed as "stealing" the nomination from it's rightful winner, but nobody talks about Hillary having "trouble" with the black vote.  It's basically assumed that the reason she isn't getting black votes is because Obama is so strong with them and not because she is particularly weak with them.

Okay, so let's look at white voters, particularly with white, working class voters.  What is it, 65-35?  60-40?  Depending on the state.  What if we split that between male and female votes?  I don't have the numbers compiled but I know she does stronger among white women than white men.  Couldn't that right there be applicable to Clinton's strength among women and not Obama's weakness, per se?

Also, Clinton does particularly well among older white women.  Couldn't this be even more attributed to a Clinton strength (i.e. wanting to see a woman president in their lifetime, whereas younger women might not feel the same urgency) and not an Obama weakness?

I am NOT saying that there's anything wrong with voting in this manner.  What I am saying is that much has been made of Obama being black and getting so much of the black vote but much less has been made of Hillary being a woman and in the same way getting a lot of female votes.  Both of those voting patterns are attributable largely to the strength of the winner in that demographic and not to a weakness of the loser in that demographic.
]]> tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.193408 2008-05-06T15:08:13Z 2008-05-06T15:08:13Z

mooshinator
In my opinion, everyone is basically correct.  The problem is that everyone leaves unspoken the GOAL they are referring to when they state a "need".

So for example, I could say "Clinton needs to win 70% of the remaining contests."  What I really should say is, "In order to win more overall pledged delegates than
Obama, Clinton needs to win 70% of the remaining contests."

I could also say "Obama needs to win NC by double digits and barely win Indiana."  What I really should say is, "In order to keep the media narrative in his favor, Obama needs to win NC by double digits and barely win Indiana."

So what ARE the candidates' goals?  Barack Obama is already winning, so he doesn't "need" anything in a strict sense.  Hillary Clinton is losing, so in one sense she "needs" everything from here on out.

Clearly, however, Hillary can't catch Barack in the pledged delegate count so in my opinion her current goal is to keep the media narrative positive for her to prevent the superdelegates from coming out overwhelmingly for Barack.  Barack's goal is to push Hillary out of the race, and to do that he needs to maintain a favorable media narrative so as to give the superdelegates cover to come out and overwhelmingly endorse him.

Obama has won this thing, barring some improbable and questionable tactics from Clinton such as forcing the MI and FL delegates to count, engaging in character assassination to "prove" that Obama is unelectable, etc...  The longer the race goes on, the more of a chance Clinton will succeed with this.  It's still very unlikely, but in order to have ANY chance at all, she must extend the race.  Thus, Obama's goal is to end the race ASAP.

Clinton's goal is to keep the race going and to keep the media covering her favorably.

What's my point?  Well, I see that Greg and Eric get a lot of criticism on this board for how they are covering this election and for various statements they make regarding who "needs" what.  In my opinion, they aren't really being biased and they aren't really trying to make it seem as if Barack has a higher standard of "need" than Hillary does.

However, I do think that they often leave the "goals" unspoken and if you look at it in terms of "extending the race" versus "ending the race" it becomes much clearer why Obama might "need" a double digit NC win and a small Indiana win whereas Clinton only "needs" to force a split and keep NC relatively close.

If you're simply talking about winning the most pledged delegates, then Obama hardly needs anything.  But I think we've moved past that.  The "goals" at this point in the game aren't about winning the most delegates, they are about extending versus ending this contest.  If we all phrased our statements of "need" in terms of a goal, all of a sudden we ALL start making a lot more sense.
]]>