Here’s a question for Jerome Armstrong. Who ‘won’ the contests in New Hampshire, Nevada, Missouri, and Texas? We all know the popular wisdom. Clinton won NH, NV, and TX, while Obama won Missouri. Here’s the reality:
- New Hampshire:
Obama: 9
Clinton: 9
Nevada:
Obama: 13
Clinton: 12
Missouri:
Obama: 36
Clinton: 36
Texas (tentatively):
Obama: 98
Clinton: 95
Clinton supporters have 101 excuses for why Obama’s tie in New Hampshire and victories in Nevada and Texas are not legitimate. Here’s how Jerome puts it:
Except that, when you listen to the Obama campaign talk about it’s victories lately, I have this inclination to see right through it– that they are not talking about support of the people, but instead having gamed the process. “The Math” as one of their talking point leaders, Jonathan Alter, likes to call it. But, as riverdaughter calls it, “people are just now starting to notice that he gets more delegates by suppressing Clinton voters than by actually, you know, winning.” The latest being that Obama “won” Texas (you know, like Bush “won” Florida).
I don’t want to become an English teacher here (with Jerome that would be sadistic), but Obama’s campaign hasn’t ‘suppressed’ anyone’s votes (as the Clintons attempted to do to students in Iowa, and casino workers and nurses in Las Vegas). What I think riverdaughter means is that the caucus system suppresses votes. That’s true, but it is hardly Obama’s fault. Jerome claims that Obama is ‘gaming the system’, but that is just a petulant way of saying that Obama’s campaign understands the system, while Hillary Clinton’s campaign does (or did) not.
After all, in a contest for delegates, what good does it do to ‘win’ Nevada and lose a delegate? What sense does it make to spend millions to get a 59-48 delegate advantage out of New Jersey only to see Obama spend $50,000 to get a 15-3 advantage out of Idaho?
And what do the Clinton supporters say about such blunders? They say that Idaho will never vote for a Democrat in November, so their New Jersey delegates are more significant than Obama’s Idaho delegates. The retort, of course, is that getting played for a sucker doesn’t make your delegates more valuable. In any case, John McCain is beating Clinton 63%-27% in Idaho so of course the Clintonistas have written off the state. Obama trails by a far more respectable 52%-39% margin. Let’s not forget that we have a senate race in Idaho this year to replace Larry ‘Wide Stance’ Craig. It’d be nice for Larry LaRocco if he didn’t have to overcome a 36-point deficit at the top of the ticket.
More Jerome:
…all his supporters now say they won Texas. Why? Because of the undemocratic proportional allocation of caucus delegates, such as an urban areas that voted Obama being worth more delegates than a Latino stronghold for Clinton in another part of the state, because of a previous election. That’s not a Democratic system– its a relic of machine-age politics. And to claim a “win” based on a system like that is not people-powered politics.
First let’s nitpick a little. Why does Jerome think that Vermont and the District of Columbia each have 15 delegates? Does he think it is because of population? Vermont has more people than Washington DC. It’s because the District is overwhelmingly Democratic. Kerry got 18,000 more votes out of DC than he got out of Vermont. So, even though Vermont has roughly 100,000 more people than DC does, DC gets the same amount of delegates. Call it undemocratic if you want, but that is how delegates are allocated, and Texas is no different. I suppose President Hillary Clinton will complain that President Musharraf or President Medvedev aren’t playing by the rules when things don’t go her way.
But, is winning delegates, winning by the rules…is that ‘people-powered politics’? Someone like Jerome Armstrong is, after all, supposed to know what people-powered politics is, right? I mean, he wrote a book about it. Yet, he doesn’t seem to know fuck-all about people-powered politics. Remind me, Jerome, how the Clinton campaign has:
…sidelin[ed] the high-paid consultants who have advised Democrats straight into minority status; evict[ed] the party’s inner circle of the shrill single-issue advocacy groups (like NARAL Pro-Choice America) that demand absolute fealty to their positions, even if it means losing an election; and influx[ed] new ideas (and cash) into the party via the “netroots.”
New ideas like having DLC President Bruce Reed feed her debate groaners like “change we can Xerox“, as if anyone under thirty-five uses the work ‘Xerox’ to mean ‘copy’. Tossing aside the high paid consultants, like giving Mark Penn $20 million to totally fuck up your campaign.
Jerome takes Chris Bowers to task because Bowers doesn’t want the Reagan Democrats back. But then he insists that all Obama’s supporters are Reagan Democrats, or ‘quasi-evangelical/republicans that come out to support him in the red states’. Yet, we hear endlessly about how Hillary Clinton is winning the white, working class, Catholic vote. Just as a reminder, the quintessential Reagan Democrats are the white, Catholic, autoworkers of Macomb County, Michigan.
The classic study of Reagan Democrats is probably the work of the Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg. Greenberg analyzed white ethnic voters (largely unionized auto workers) in Macomb County, Michigan, just north of Detroit. The county voted 63 percent for John F. Kennedy in 1960, but 66 percent for Reagan in 1984. He concluded that “Reagan Democrats” no longer saw Democrats as champions of their middle-class aspirations, but instead saw them as working primarily for the benefit of others: the very poor, the unemployed, African Americans, and other political pressure groups.
It is Hillary Clinton that is thriving off support from Reagan Democrats. Unlike, Bowers, I would like those voters back, but not if it means pandering to their social conservatism. Obama is picking up a different kind of Republican. Maybe they might be more accurately dubbed ‘Goldwater Republicans’…’live free or die’ Republicans…libertarian Republicans. These are Republicans that are looking at Obama because of things like Terri Schiavo and Bush’s massive deficit spending and foreign adventurism.
But, in keeping with Armstrong’s general incoherence he goes on to acknowledge my point.
Obama does have a substantive problem with the “Reagan Democrats” who will not support him, but to make that into Clinton’s crutch, instead of Obama’s unique problem to overcome, is wrong.
But the real flaw in Jerome’s reasoning is the same as it seems to be for all of Clinton’s supporters at this stage of the game. He has no idea how Clinton can overcome ‘The Math’, but he doesn’t let that bother his beautiful mind.
I don’t pretend to know how we get from “the math” to the final outcome, but I do I believe that the contest has made a dramatic turn, and it points in the direction of Clinton winning the nomination.
And, yet, not one word on how Clinton can beat McCain in November once she has convinced the Establishment to overrule the will of the voters as expressed by The Rules under which the delegates were selected.
And this is what passes for analysis.
Another observation here: the Obama campaign understands the system. They know where their votes are coming from, and where to focus their energy to get those votes. With Clinton in the fall, I bet we’d see another Kerry or Gore – she might win the popular vote (though voting “irregularities” would make it impossible to conclusively determine), but McCain would win the electoral vote by an unassailable margin. And Clinton would make some noise about how unfair the system is, then go back to her comfortable Senate seat and start cheering for the new President, forcing Democrats to accept his policies, and continuing the great job she’s been doing under Bush.
Obama at least has the potential to understand how to campaign under the flawed electoral system and achieve victory. Whether that’ll translate to victory is unclear, but unclear’s a damn sight better than “sure to fail”.
So, the feeding frenzy begins. Does this mean that the “Liberal” sphere is going to eat each other while the goopers take home the prize? Sure, Jerome is trying to game the system in order to support his agenda. But, we all have agendas. Te tragedy as I see it is that there is a bigger agenda and lest we forget that agenda, we all lose!
If anyone has forgotten it, let me refresh you all- THE WHITEHOUSE! If you need further, just scroll down to the mccain comment in the next post! How about focusing folks. Jerome needs to wake up and smell the coffee but I have my doubts. Hillary needs to stop giving the goopers any more talking point for the Fall. The O man has to get just a little more focused on his potential challenge (if he wins the nomination!)
And we all have to refrain from eating each other!
Your analysis is excellent, Booman.
Here’s a good piece on why Hillary’s “base” continues to support her:
JoAnn Wypijewski, You Can’t Lick the Boot that Kicks You
This piece makes clear that Obama has an uphill struggle, since if various pressure groups supposedly representing the people’s interests, such as labor and civil rights and women’s groups, did not resist the Clintons’ regressive policies during Clinton’s reign, it is hard to imagine that they will stop enabling the Clintons now.
Excellent article!
That really is an excellent article. Everyone should read it – and spread it around.
The caucus delegate system, far from being “anti-democratic” as some have claimed, is actually a good way to build party participation.
In Texas, the number of delegates a precinct was given was directly proportional to how many people voted for the 2006 democratic candidate for governor. In other words, participation is rewarded. That’s very democratic.
Excellent, Booman!
Also, note here:
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Texas_GOP_voted_Hillary/2008/03/05/78104.html?s=al&promo_code
=469F-1
Hillary didn’t win Texas (and probably Ohio). Rush Limbaugh did.
And if you get bored this afternoon, here’s my analysis of the week:
http://southofheaven.typepad.com/south_of_heaven/2008/03/this-weeks-prop.html
It must be hard for Jerome to breathe with his head stuck so deeply into the sands of electoral politics.
Has him effectively reaching his own lungs for air since that’s how far up his ass his head is.
It’s well-known that I’ve never had a high opinion of Armstrong and his tortured logic and self-importance has always bugged me. These past three months have been almost painful to watch though.
Nice image. Admittedly I don’t go over there very often anymore.
It’s always interesting to observe how Clinton supporters manage to handle the cognitive dissonance — in this case, forthrightly opposed to gaming the rules in Texas while at the same time demanding that they be allowed to totally ignore the rules in FL and MI. Much like Clinton’s ability to promise a vice president she says is grossly unqualified to be president.
I really want to feel OK about her, but this constant Rovian ambiance makes that almost impossible.
As in my above comment, the caucuses in Texas better represented the Democrats’ will in Texas versus the crossover laden popular vote.
Hey – I’m reading this really interesting article re Obama and the Senate – http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html.
Highly recommended. Love the quote at the end of this little excerpt (it’s a big piece):
Another great quote from the same piece:
of why I took MyDD of my personal bloglist and put Booman Tribune on in its place.
Literally.
Thanks for validating my decision further, BooMan.
Jerome has boosted his site visit numbers by catering to the Hillaryphiles. Can you expect anything more from him? Look at his co-author on Daily Kos, caters to just the opposite crowd.
So isn’t it all about what Jerome and Kos bleat about, about blog success and survival, the underlying message one gets from Daily Kos and MyDD?
Pay no attention. The resurgent left wing will survive with or without them.
you know it’s possible that they just disagree.
with his beliefs in a people powered movement.
have been a gate crasher in name only. Now he’s the doorman. Considering what the Clintons’ think of the netroots he’s more like a doormat.
It’s interesting to hear representative democracy described as “un-democratic.”
It’s also find it interesting to hear self-styled experts opining on the flaws of caucus system, especially, as is usually the case, when those self-styled experts have never attended one.
Although I won’t attempt to pass myself off as an expert on caucuses, unlike the many poseurs on the subject, but I have had many discussions with my mentor in political science on the advantages and disadvantages of a caucus system, particularly when compared to a primaries. Our conversations on the topic were not strictly academic in nature, since he was also a fellow caucus attendee for over twenty years, and a number of those caucuses were run by me.
Caucuses draw a cross-section of traditional Democratic constituencies, but they tilt towards the older, more educated, blue collar & union, and activist voters. The term ‘high information voter’ describes them quite well since the typical caucus attendee is much more involved in local politics and issues than the typical voter, and they also have a much greater knowledge of the history of their region.
The model for caucuses is the New England town meeting, which makes the undemocratic argument sound even more ironic since caucuses are form of direct democracy, and the Western states that use them allow citizens to create initiatives, which are not mediated by a political establishment hostage to special interests, as is often the case elsewhere. Therefore, citizens in caucus states have greater control of their government than in non-caucus states.
Oddly, the same argument used against caucuses could be used against representative democracy itself, since a representative democracy is not a direct democracy. Moreover, professional politicians — despite their claims — often do not represent their constituents nor their wishes.
The comparisons between primary and caucus voters are quite interesting. Firstly, the differences between the two are similar to the difference between primary voters and general election voters of the same party. Since fewer Democratic voters participate in the primary than the general election, primary voters skew in the same direction as caucus voters. But the main distinctions between caucus and primary voters are in the active/passive participation and the mediation of political communication between the voters and their politicians.
Caucus voters discuss issues and the reasons they support candidates, and they have ability to vote on initiatives that they deem important and send them up the line. As such, caucus voters fully engage in a two way communication process with elected officials and nominees. Primaries, on the other hand, are primarily a passive process, with no participation required other than selecting among the choices the political establishment offers to voters. However, the greatest difference between the two may be in the method politicians use to communicate with voters, since the politicians often chose to bypass the party entirely and communicate through electronic media. The result of this development has been the atrophying of the party apparatus, as politicians become free agents who are no longer dependent on the party for funding, and no longer need to toe the line on issues since the party lacks coercive measures to enforce discipline.
It’s not much of surprise then that modern politics resembles marketing. Choices consist of McCandidates who are as politically nutritious as a Big Mac. Ordering off the menu isn’t allowed, and the advertising crafted to win our vote is no more informative than a hamburger commercial. Rather than convince us of the merits of a candidacy, political advertisements are aimed at our basest instincts and succeed through endless, mind numbing repetition. Democracy to Jerome Armstrong is a MacDonald’s, and his evidence that his form of democracy is good for us is the fact that so many people eat their and ‘choose’ to eat Big Macs.
Great post.
IMHO, the Popular Vote seems to be the defining characteristic in this game space. Paradoxically, Obama’s leading in the popular vote (among other things), but Clinton seems to be “winning” & Obama’s the one “floundering”. Looking at the colored “win” maps of the MSM media giving Clinton NH, NV, & TX gives me the impression that Obama’s being perceptually handicapped. Allowing Clinton enough time to reconfigure her game plan to the 50 State Strategy (the game space). Kudos for Clinton’s ability to take advantage of a possible weakness in the game space keeping the goal posts fuzzy. Kudos for Obama’s superior numeracy—he’s nailed The Math that correctly tallies Caucus/Primary/Super Delegates.
Video Games: Perspective, Point-of-View, and Immersion by Laurie N. Taylor
Maybe Caucuses are like MUDs, MOOs or MMORPGs. A real-time 50 State Strategy multi-user game establishing a game space that falls well within people-powered politics. It’s the game Obama forced everyone (including Clinton) to start playing. Maybe we just need a PPP User’s Manual & the MSM needs to download & install it. Because if the Democrats can’t move this game out of Beta to Official Release, then we’ve got political vaporware. And the PPP inspired users will find another game to play… Realignment 1.0.
I wanted to draw attention to a point Booman made because I screwed up on the same point in a recent Texas thread.
The current apportionment plan, which I’ve simplified here, draws on two main factors; (1) total population, and (2) recent Democratic turnout.
You can read the actual plan through the following link:
http://www.blueoregon.com/2008/02/understanding-d.html
The actual plan is linked to a the bottom, see Delegate Selection Plan.
Armstrong is amazingly clueless when he talks about the “..undemocratic proportional allocation of caucus delegates” since the reason delegates are proportioned the way they are, as Booman points out, is because there are more Democratic voters in these districts. As I pointed out in the Texas thread, exaggerating the influence of Democrats in red districts would be undemocratic. The point was to treat Democrats equally. All districts ARE NOT equal in terms of Democratic turnout, and that’s the reason their apportionment is weighted differently.
I’d add that “the quintessential Reagan Democrats are the white, Catholic” firefighters of NYC.
My brother-in-law is a prefect example: he’s the union rep at his firehouse – esentially the shop steward – and voted for Perot, and Bush. He’d support Bloomberg.
And there’s a bunch more just like him.