29 posts tagged “politics”

Counting Votes Fairly

Mar 9, 2008
Post a comment

I'm surprised how many people think the Democrats' way of recording votes in the primaries isn't democratic. They'd prefer winner take all, I guess. And no system is perfect. But it's easily provable that the proportional delegate system, where winning 53% of a state gives you 53% of the delegates, is more fair than winner take all.

Let's say in a state of one million people, your campaign pulls 53% of the vote. And then in a state of ten million people, you again gain 53% of the vote. Let's look at the numbers for you versus your rival:

You:

53% of the popular vote (5,830,000 people)

53% of the delegates (5,830,000 people's votes represented)

Your rival:

47% of the vote (5,170,000 people)

47% of the delegates (5,170,000 people's votes represented)

Overall:

Approximately 100% of the voters have a delegate to represent their choice

Now let's look at the same thing in a winner take all situation. You, again, win 53% in the small state and the big state:

You:

53% of the popular vote (5,830,000 people)

100% of the delegates (5,830,000 people's votes represented, 5,170,000 people's votes ignored)

Your rival:

47% of the vote (5,170,000 people)

0% of the delegates (5,170,000 people who might as well not have showed up)

The country:

53% have a delegate that will represent them, 47% are ignored.

I don't see how you can reasonably argue that winner-take-all is somehow more democratic, or that the Democrats' approach is somehow disenfranchising voters. But some people are trying. They point to Obama's 2-3 delegate pick-up in Wyoming, and how that's pretty similar to Clinton's advantage in Texas. "How does a small state have more influence than a big, important state like Texas?" they cry. Well, Virginia, it doesn't.

Let's look at what happened in Texas. Hillary took 65 delegates to Obama's 61, meaning she took 51% of the delegates. And let's see, according to wikipedia, she got 1,459,814 votes out of 2,868,454, which is 50.8% percent.

So it's pretty clear that the delegates are split in a way that accurately reflects the will of the people. Now let's look at what happened in Wyoming. There were 12 total delegates to dole out, and Obama received 7 of 12, or 58% of the delegates. And he got there with 5,378 out of 8,753 total votes, which is 61.44%.

I don't understand how people can argue winner-take-all is more fair and accurate than proportional. It's pretty black and white.

Fighting Only Gets You So Far

Mar 8, 2008
Post a comment

Fight or flight? When someone punches you in the face, do you jump back up and fight back, or do you stay on the ground or run away?

There's something exciting and invigorating about saying you'd jump back in the fray. Punch the shark in the nose. Scare off an home invader in your robe. But sometimes it's just stupid.

If you're out walking with your 5 year old and a mugger asks for your wallet while holding a gun, just give him your damn wallet. It takes a misguided form of bravado to value the life of your child below the combined value of your wallet and your ego.

Obama's in a situation that is far more nuanced, but I still think there's a right answer. He's being attacked viciously by an increasingly desperate Clinton campaign, and many are saying that it's time for him to stop being such a nice guy and fight back. While I relate to the feelings of frustration that Obama hasn't clinched the nomination yet, and that Hillary really is fighting dirty, I cannot fathom why Obama supporters want him to jump into the gutter with her.

If Obama loses his inspiring call for a new kind of politics, he has nothing left. Their policy positions are similar, but she has more experience. If that was the only consideration, Clinton would win. But Obama's been able to keep things competitive, and in fact take the lead, by trying to appear "post-political". Remove that advantage and he's done.

But I think I know what his strategy is. He knows he's going to win Wyoming today and then Mississippi in a few days. And he knows both strategically but also morally that taking the low road isn't how he wants to win this. Nor can he. So he's going to sit tight, wait for more wins to roll in, and he's going to continue pressing the facts: more states, more total votes, more delegates, more wins in competitive states.

And Hillary's campaign can War Room all it wants. The fact is, time isn't on her side. All Obama needs to do is stay reasonably above the political fray, which is what he's been doing for a year. Clinton's task is harder: she needs to draw Obama into a knife fight, and so far it hasn't worked.

Impressive

Feb 21, 2008
Post a comment

The way Hillary Clinton closed the Texas debate was one of the highlights of the race for me. It was magnificent.

The two candidates were asked what moment challenged them the most, and helped craft who they were. Obama had an ok answer, but then Clinton really connected for a few minutes, which led to a standing ovation that I think was meant for her alone. The moment was bittersweet because I felt she was clearly signaling how she would handle defeat when the day comes. And it made me like and respect her more.

She essentially said that life is hard for normal Americans, not Senators like her and Obama. She spoke (convincingly) of how she has tried to always live in a way that gives back to a country that has given her so much. But the part that put a lump in my throat was at the very end, when she said she was honored to be there with Barack Obama, and said whatever happens, they'll be fine.

Whatever happens.

It was the second time of the night she signaled her willingness to bow out gracefully if she falls any further behind, and I think her admiration of Obama was truly genuine. The cues were subtle, and I could have misread her, but I felt that she was saying "I went up against a phenomenon, and I may well lose despite trying as hard as I could. But I will not hold back my party. We will be united, and I will support this amazing leader as he works to get Democrats back in the White House."

And now the internet is abuzz with clips comparing her final statements to her husband and John Edwards. And it is bad timing considering her clunker plagiarism line about "hope you can Xerox". But I don't care. Hillary is basically out of the race. I think she knows the end is coming, and I like that she's signaling she's going to be gracious about it. It's good for the party. And good for her.

Racists Have Nowhere to Go This Election Year

Feb 16, 2008
Post a comment

Excited voters for Obama and Clinton:

I haven't been this excited about politics and change in a long time. Whether Obama or Clinton, we may be on the verge of something new in American politics, and that's cause for hope.

Actual comment by a representative right-wing racist:

"This is why your voting for Barack Hussein Obama? Your joking, right? Well in that case I'm gonna' vote for him cus' his lips are as purple as the favorite part of my body. Rock that vote!"

Several grammatical errors (and the same one twice): Check.

Mention of Barack Obama's middle name, which is Hussein: Check.

Racism (he's black!): Check.

Racism (his name sounds Muslim, which is automatically bad!): Check.

But the racist attitudes that make a person vote against a black man are the same ones that will make it harder to vote for McCain, a Republican who doesn't support some of the radical immigration policy ideas floating around. The xenophobic vote may have no one that will carry their water this year. Maybe they'll stay home and evolve as human beings so they deserve to share this country with rational people.

Aiming at Noonan

Feb 10, 2008
Post a comment

I saw Peggy Noonan for the first time about a week ago on Meet the Press. I had to grab my wife so we could watch her together. "Is she parodying someone, or does she really talk like that?!" I squealed. I have rarely seen someone so easy to caricature. She's smug, rambling, brilliant, and aware of her brilliance, all in equal measure.

I saw her again on Super Duper Tuesday, though her mannerisms weren't quite as ... hilarious. So maybe the Meet the Press performance wasn't how she normally acts. I'm not sure.

But I was intrigued. I looked her up. Oh! She's the "thousand points of light" speechwriter. And the one who wrote the Challenger disaster speech that Reagan delivered. So she's not just smart, she's one of the best speechwriters alive. Huh! Good for her.

So why is her latest column so inscrutable? It's titled Can Mrs. Clinton Lose? Her central point is that Obama is bulletproof, Hillary is losing, and Republicans should be scared. Easy enough. But she manages to ramble and sound smug even on the printed page.

One part of the Clinton mystique maintains: Deep down journalists think she's a political Rasputin who will not be dispatched. Prince Yusupov served him cupcakes laced with cyanide, emptied a revolver, clubbed him, tied him up and threw him in a frozen river. When he floated to the surface they found he'd tried to claw his way from under the ice. That is how reporters see Hillary.
And that is a grim and over-the-top analogy, which I must withdraw. What I really mean is they see her as the Glenn Close character in "Fatal Attraction": "I won't be ignored, Dan!"

Wait, what?

So here we have a respected essayist making a point, claiming she doesn't agree with it, and then rather than just editing it out, actually writing "that is a grim and over-the-top analogy, I must withdraw." It's like this is her first draft, done entirely via stream-of-consciousness, and published without the sanity of an editor. People write like that in high school, in blogs, not in the Wall Street Journal. Even on its infamous op-ed page.

Washington Caucus!

Feb 9, 2008
2 comments

We're headed off to the Washington State caucuses soon. It's very exciting. Almost everyone I know is taking this election seriously, and there are a large number of educated undecideds. It's not that people haven't been doing their research, and (for once) it's not people talking about "the lesser of two evils", a phrase that makes me gnash my teeth. It's that Obama and Clinton are both excellent candidates with their own deep wells of support.

This is a real race between two fantastic (and historic) frontrunners, and I don't think there's a wrong answer. But some people do, and I'd like to address them today. It's pretty simple:

Don't be a sore loser.

To the Hillary folks that claim she's having trouble because she's a woman: yes, her gender probably limits her somewhat. But the bigger issue is that her name is Hillary Clinton. A lot of people are turned off by her, not because she's a woman but because they don't like her personally. Fair or not, that's the card she's been dealt.

And the Obama people (I'm voting for him today) are preemptively bellyaching that if Hillary wins, "people get the Democracy they deserve", or claiming they'll stay home rather than vote for Hillary. In their minds, there's a right answer and a very, very wrong answer, and they're willing to Nader the Hillary campaign to make a point. But remember, if she wins, she won't do it by accident. People (even if you can't believe it) are enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton being in the White House.

If you're a Democrat that's actually considering sulking on election day rather than supporting the party, I can only assume you care more about the president's personality than actual policy.

On health care, Obama and Clinton's plans both move in the same direction with slightly different approaches. McCain goes in the opposite direction, which is more of the same "the market will solve eventually solve health care" thinking.

On foreign policy, McCain is likely to take military action against Iran. He has claimed that the amount of time we're in Iraq is irrelevant, whether 50 or 100 years. Obama and Clinton both want to get out quickly and carefully.

Abortion isn't a big election-year topic, but McCain is pro-life. Obama and Clinton are pro-choice. The president is responsible for appointing Supreme Court justices.

Tax cuts to solve almost any financial problem? Obama and Clinton want to let the tax cuts expire for people making over $250,000 as a way to help pay for universal health care. (middle class families would not be affected) McCain is in a party that talks about fiscal responsibility yet has sent us into record deficits since 1980 while simultaneously pushing tax cuts for the rich. The only exception? Clinton, from the so-called "tax and spend" Democratic party.

It's great seeing Democrats fighting hard for their nominee. This is how our government works, and it's a heart-warming thing to see in action. But when a winner is chosen, it is of paramount importance that we rally behind the Democrat, no matter who he or she happens to be. Save your die-hard allegiances for sporting events. We're dealing with real issues with real consequences here.

A Virtual Tie?

Feb 5, 2008
1 comment

At 9:23pm PST, it's looking like if Hillary wins about 55% of the delegates in California, Clinton and Obama could just about tie delegates overall.

This is absolutely stunning. I feel lucky to have lived through it.

Strangely Complacent

Feb 5, 2008
Post a comment

I'm a pretty opinionated guy. But I'm finding myself sitting back and watching the Democratic primaries without a strong opinion. Rather than running around and trying to convince all of my friends and family to vote the way I am, I'm finding that I don't care.

Part of it is that I feel that both candidates are very strong, and I'd happily vote for either of them.

But another, larger part, is a sense that it's rude to pressure people about their politics. I think candidates should make their case, and I think volunteers should try to turn out the vote and answer questions about their candidate.

But I'm just thrilled America is engaged again. Republican or Democrat, Obama or Hillary, people are voting. People are really considering their choices. And that, regardless of who is elected, is the most important part of this story.

Now I'm For Obama

Jan 13, 2008
Post a comment

If McCain manages to win the primary, he'll pose the biggest obstacle to the Democrats winning the white house in 2008. And he continues to have pull amongst independents.

Obama also has huge independent pull, whereas Hillary doesn't have much.

We can't afford more Republicanism in our foreign policy. Hillary is a gamble in the general election, so I have to go with Obama over Clinton.*

* To recap my feelings on this, I think Hillary would be more competent from day one, and I think Obama is more inspiring. I'd be thrilled for either of them to win, but I was leaning towards the more experienced Clinton. I had calculated that either one would still win, but if that's in doubt, I have to go with the safer choice which is currently Obama.

Here Comes Obama

Dec 16, 2007
Post a comment

For the very first time, I think Obama can win the Democratic primary.

He will probably take Iowa. He's come a long way in the New Hampshire polls, and might actually beat Clinton there, which I absolutely did not see coming.

If he takes the first two, the press coverage, the enthusiasm, and the fact that his fund raising is essentially equal to Clinton will combine to make him hard to slow down. Hillary still has better than even odds, but I'm now watching Obama seriously again.

He's got moxie.