Without their very own “Luck Dragon”, the Democrats are fucked.Last night the NC and IN primaries came to a close and with it, the chances that Hillary Clinton could be elected President went to zero. Well… maybe. You see I, like so many others, still think that she is so focused on this, and has committed so much of her self-esteem into the race that she can’t see that it’s over and may therefore fail to release her pesky little tallons on this thing and come up with some extraordinary methods of snatching it away from Barack Obama. I envision some sort of closed, smoke-filled room where they hatch a plan to re-introduce FL and MI into the mix and hold instant runoff, winner take-all primaries in those states, giving Hillary the closing lead in the required delegates. This will of course, fulfill the mission of the Democratic Party, which is to torpedo itself into a loss in November. They can do it… I have faith.
I am not a big fan of Obama. I mean, yeah he’d be a fine President. We could do worse, but there just seems to be something about him that smells like form over function... style over substance. But I decided to do my own digging. If you look at energy policy I think it is demonstrative of my concern. According to the Washington Post:
I am not a big fan of Obama. I mean, yeah he’d be a fine President. We could do worse, but there just seems to be something about him that smells like form over function... style over substance. But I decided to do my own digging. If you look at energy policy I think it is demonstrative of my concern. According to the Washington Post:
Clinton voted to oppose the federal boost for grain-based ethanol (read corn growers in IA) while Obama supported it. For my money that’s one good point for her. As we’ve seen, corn-based ethanol is not the answer to the energy crisis. It is however one of the causes of the global food shortage. The vote in question was an effort to block a proposed amendment to the 2005 energy bill that would have established an ethanol mandate for refineries. Obama voted for the ethanol mandate. Hmmm. Go figure, a Senator from a corn growing state in favor of this one. Also, Clinton supported a bill to expand oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico, while Obama voted against it. Until my car runs on hydrogen, I think we need to do what we can to exploit home-grown oil resources. The bottom line is that he may be trying to do the right thing, but's leading to an energy crisis and starvation.
You see, it’s those unintended consequences of well meaning politicians that always fuck us over. Like that tool in Duluth MN and his damn cel. phone legislation. He wants to save lives, but all he’d really end up doing is driving people on the edge of the lower middle class into poverty. He means no harm. In fact he means well. You see that’s the problem with idealists, they tend to try to fix things... to make change happen. Frankly, the less they do, really the better off we all are and I think the American public believes that. Any guesses on which of the three candidates will actually try to do the least? I just get the sense that this is a contest between optimism and pragmatism. I think we all know where I fit on that spectrum.
All of this is, of course, irrelevant because barring the previous scenario involving FL and MI there’s no way she can win. Unless of course, Obama is found to be a “Secret Muslim”, something that Jeremiah Wright has firmly eliminated as a possibility.
So there you have it, Obama is going to be the nominee. I can deal with that. Fine. But there’s something troubling me. As I have stated before, Democrats can’t win in 2008. The reason is two-fold.
First, in case you haven’t noticed the racial lines are being drawn more distinctly as the campaigns move forward. Clinton was getting 20% of the black vote at one time, now it’s down to 6%. Obama is getting virtually all the black vote now (over 90%) and though maintaining a certain percentage of upscale white voters, it’s still around 40% in many cases. As this thing moves to the general election, the divide will become more polarized not less. The Republicans will make this about race. They have to, and 30% of the white vote is not enough to win the Presidency. It’s pathetic and sad, but as I’ve said previously, we’re just not ready for that. I hope I eat my words come November, but something tells me McCain will win this thing. Worse than that, the country will be much more racially divided than we were at the start of this thing. If the demographics in the voting continue to trend the way they have (increasingly divisive), I think it’s safe to say, we’re screwed.
The other reason Democrats stand to lose is the way they elect their nominee. You see, Clinton has this right. If the States were winner-take-all like the Republican system (for the most part), then she’d be the nominee. Maybe the Democrats should nominate their candidates using the same sort of method that, you know, the Country does when they elect a President. I mean, we have this little thing called the Electoral College (delegates) and this winner-take-all system per state. Maybe, just maybe, Democrats should apply that system to their selection process. Howard Dean, are you listening?
3 comments:
One should not refer to oneself as pragmatic. Let other people call you that, if indeed that's what they think of you. Newsflash: _everybody_ thinks they're a realist, especially the optimistic.
That said, I believe that you're living in a fantasy world. The GOP is not going to make this about race. McCain probably doesn't even know that Obama's black. I won't tell him if you won't.
And please, can we stop referring to "trends" in who is voting for whom? If the states had held their primaries in a different order, the so-called "trends" would have followed different trajectories, and we'd still have ended up roughly where we are now.
Finally, I think that the election map in November is going to be bluer than you think. Democrats will come together (along with lots of independents and even some republicans) and trounce McCain. This will be especially evident if Obama becomes our democratic nominee - and he will, that's about the only thing you got right.
First of all Kuni, I can call myself what I wish. If you disagree, you may say so, but I don't see a problem calling myself a pragmatist. "It ain't braggin' if it's true."
In my fantasy world, Republicans will make race an issue. If you believe otherwise, you're reality is a much better place than my fantasy world.
The trends to which I am referring are racial demographics, not sequential election dates. Nothing happens in a vacuum, the status of the war, the economy or other issues at any given moment will sway the electorate. But to say that timing doesn't affect the outcome is, well, simply not pragmatic enough for me. The order in which the States vote is probably not all that relevent, but it does matter to a degree.
To borrow from the theme of my post, there's no black-and-white answer to this question.
Finally Kuni, aside from an Obama-like hope in your beliefs you offer nothing but vague pronouncements that Democrats will "come together". As if believing that were enough to make it happen.
In other words you find my arguments false and without merit because you don't like my conclusions.
That said... I hope you're right.
Thinking about McCain as president truly makes me nauseaous.
But Scott, it does remind me that I got you a Tshirt at Spamalot that says "I fart in your general direction."
I thought you'd like it.
Post a Comment