more politics
Apr. 8th, 2008 10:55 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
winterbadgerA friend sent me a link to this New Republic article. I responded thusly:
I *want* Clinton to bow out because (a) I detest her and (b)I think it's doing the Democrats no good at all to have a bitter and divisive campaign continue. But this article is shoddy.
"These beliefs reflect the mathematical illiteracy that has allowed the press corps to be routinely duped by economic flim-flammery. A lead that's insurmountable is, by definition, not small."
Don't be ridiculous! Of course it's a small lead. In the previous four elections held under these proportional representation rules, the eventual leader *HAMMERED* his opponents in delegate counts. 1996 hardly even counts, since Clinton was running against that powerhouse Lyndon LaRouche. But in 1992 he got nearly 3400 delegates, and the closest challenger got less than 600. In 2000, Bradley was nowhere close to Gore. And in 2004, Kerry had nearly 2600 delegates; no one else had more than 600. All signs point to (Hilary) Clinton and Obama being almost tied in delegates, only a few hundred apart. It's a lead, but let's not pretend that it's huge. The Democratic electorate *really* isn't sure which of these people to choose.
"The very primary rules that make it impossible for Clinton to catch up--proportionate distribution of delegates that award tiny net sums to the winner--are exactly what made Obama's lead so impressive."
Obama's lead is *NOT* impressive! It is not even insurmountable, given the number of uncommitted superdelegates.
As for the Nader hate, the problem is that, much as I loathe him, Nader is right. If he were not a more appealing candidate than the alternatives, if people hadn't thought that he should be supported, then no one would have voted for him (or will vote for him this time around). No one *forces* people to go and vote for a third candidate--no one but the first two candidates, that is. The Democratic nominee doesn't "deserve" those votes any more than Hilary Clinton "deserves" to be the nominee.
The stuff about "lowly Puerto Rico deserves to be heard" and "poor little me, the woman, always being trodden on and made to step aside" is, I agree, bollocks.
I *want* Clinton to bow out because (a) I detest her and (b)I think it's doing the Democrats no good at all to have a bitter and divisive campaign continue. But this article is shoddy.
"These beliefs reflect the mathematical illiteracy that has allowed the press corps to be routinely duped by economic flim-flammery. A lead that's insurmountable is, by definition, not small."
Don't be ridiculous! Of course it's a small lead. In the previous four elections held under these proportional representation rules, the eventual leader *HAMMERED* his opponents in delegate counts. 1996 hardly even counts, since Clinton was running against that powerhouse Lyndon LaRouche. But in 1992 he got nearly 3400 delegates, and the closest challenger got less than 600. In 2000, Bradley was nowhere close to Gore. And in 2004, Kerry had nearly 2600 delegates; no one else had more than 600. All signs point to (Hilary) Clinton and Obama being almost tied in delegates, only a few hundred apart. It's a lead, but let's not pretend that it's huge. The Democratic electorate *really* isn't sure which of these people to choose.
"The very primary rules that make it impossible for Clinton to catch up--proportionate distribution of delegates that award tiny net sums to the winner--are exactly what made Obama's lead so impressive."
Obama's lead is *NOT* impressive! It is not even insurmountable, given the number of uncommitted superdelegates.
As for the Nader hate, the problem is that, much as I loathe him, Nader is right. If he were not a more appealing candidate than the alternatives, if people hadn't thought that he should be supported, then no one would have voted for him (or will vote for him this time around). No one *forces* people to go and vote for a third candidate--no one but the first two candidates, that is. The Democratic nominee doesn't "deserve" those votes any more than Hilary Clinton "deserves" to be the nominee.
The stuff about "lowly Puerto Rico deserves to be heard" and "poor little me, the woman, always being trodden on and made to step aside" is, I agree, bollocks.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-08 03:31 pm (UTC)I am not a fan of HRC either, but let's keep things in perspective
Date: 2008-04-08 03:36 pm (UTC)TNR is the enemy. HRC is not.
Re: I am not a fan of HRC either, but let's keep things in perspective
Date: 2008-04-08 03:42 pm (UTC)