So, a lot has happened since my last post. Let's recap, shall we?
* I'll start with the Republicans, cos they're easy: John McCain will be the GOP's presidential nominee. To steal a line from Colbert, Huckabee may have "majored in miracles," but he apparently failed math. Getting the magic number is only a technicality for McCain. Not bad for a guy who was being left for dead (uh, politically-speaking, that is) a short eight or nine months ago.
How'd he pull this Lazarus routine off? Well, it certainly didn't hurt that his main rival could be described with such great accuracy in this Daily Show send-off. (I found the bit particularly amusing because I had used that exact same epithet to describe Romney only hours before when one of my co-workers told me he was withdrawing: "Good," said I, "that guy's a total ******-***" (or something to that effect)). Not sure why the Huckster didn't do better, but I guess I'm starting to realize that what the average conservative wants is a guy who's basically a complete corporate tool but can also sprinkle some biblical references into his speechifying (apparently, the Huckster didn't fit the bill sufficiently on the first score). Yes, as I read one conservative type saying, Bush was a good candidate cos he was Romney and Huckabee all rolled into one. Sounds like a nightmare to scare Frankenstein to me, but I reckon that is just the sort of jackass who really rallies the righties. Alas, the Decider hisself can only grace us with his glorious leadership for two terms (oh, what a sad day it will be when they put him out to pasture)...
In any case, the torch has been passed to fightin' Johnny McCain.
* But who will his opponent be? Well, after Super Tuesday, there was some wacky spin coming from the Clintonistas that she had done well, crows that Obama's "Obamentum" hadn't really done what was expected, but I, for one, never bought it. Sure, he didn't take California, for example, but for him to have basically managed a draw with the woman who had been the presumptive front-runner at least until Iowa, and then regained that mantle, arguably, after New Hampshire...well, they just couldn't spin that as a good omen for her (or rather, they could, but their jollity seemed a bit forced, to say the least).
Especially with the schedule showing such a good February for Obama. And danged if he and his campaign haven't made the most of it. 10 and 0, particularly with yet another lopsided loss in Wisconsin last night, in which H.C.'s base seemed to increasingly take to the new guy, and it is utterly reasonable to say she's in tremendous trouble. Can you count her out, yet? Nah, that'd be stupid after all the wackiness that's gone on this campaign season, but if I understand the delegate math very well, it sounds to me like she'd need to have the sort of blowouts Obama's been racking up recently to even pull even in the delegate race, and given that her wins have typically been much closer than his, it just seems really, really unlikely that she'll pull that off. Sure, she *might* win Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, but even if she does, it's sounds like it will be extremely difficult for her to make up the delegate gap.
And, whoever has the pledged delegate lead when the dust settles will, I think, be the Democratic nominee. Could the so-called super delegates effectively override the will of the voters and hand the nomination to Clinton if she comes in with fewer pledged delegates? Sure, but besides being patently anti-democratic, it would be incredibly stupid in terms of the chances of beating McCain. Have the Dems been incredibly stupid in the past? Sure, so I guess anything's possible, but I don't think even they are dumb enough as a group to try something like that. Besides, Obama (short of donning a turban and converting to Islam) is obviously the stronger general election candidate, so I think that'll make things pretty easy for 'em, should it come to that.
As it is, I wouldn't be surpised if Obama doesn't take one of those big three states and open up a delegate lead big enough to make it pretty much a moot question. (I.e., it's one thing if he's only ahead by a few delegates, but if he stays up by a couple hundred, it's even harder to imagine the super delegates trying to steal it.)
* So, let's just say it's Obama v. McCain in the general. Well, first of all, I'd have to say that after eight years of Bush, it might seem like the electoral Moirae are finally smiling on us. Well, at least on me, anyway, since that was the combo I was hopin' for.
So, I then have to wonder if things will go completely as I'd like and Obama (the least of all the potential evils, in my estimation) will win in November.
Well, with the caveat that a whole lotta stuff could happen in the next eight or so months, I'd say at this point that it would definitely look like his race to lose. Sure, there's the fact that he's half black, the fiction that he's a Muslim, the "naive" tag, but Democratic voters, for the most part, at least, haven't seemed to take the bait. Will Republicans and independents be more susceptible to such "arguments"? Perhaps, but plenty of them seem to be voting for him in these primaries, so it's doesn't seem right to think they'd abandon him en masse in the general.
And as for the Muslim trick and similar lies, those should provide an interesting test for McCain, actually. Having been burned himself by such scrofulous stuff by the Bushies in 2000, he will probably be given the opportunity at some point to take the high road and call those lies what they are. Will he do the straight-talkin' thing and speak the truth, even if condemning the lies might be politically inexpedient? Or will he act like Bush with the Swiftboaters, vaguely pooh-poohing "outside groups" while clearly hopin' that their lies help him win?
Well, either way, again, I think the younger, charismatic, potential "first ever" candidate has a basic advantage over the old white guy, even if the latter is fairly likable as politicians go. Sure, lots of things could change the calculus. If al-Qaeda attacks in the US again, if Obama is caught in a truly unambiguous case of plagiarism or dirty-dealing with some idicted supporter...then sure, maybe people go with the "safe" choice, the "authentic" war hero.
But, absent some major game-changing event, or a big blunder on Obama's part, I'd put money on him beating McCain come November. I'd estimate by 5 to 10 percent, in fact, since I'm busy prognosticatin'...
Well, we'll see. He's still gotta get by Hillary first.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Super Tuesday Pre-Fight Weigh-in - Knockouts and Split Decisions
Well, so much has happened since I blathered last that it would be difficult to express all the things that have wandered through my brain in the meantime. But, I can certainly attempt a sampling:
* The Democratic race got particularly ugly there for a while (no?) with someone (well, several someones) "playing the race card" rather shamelessly, and I don't think it was the black guy...Yup, I agree with the opinion of various other observers who think that Clinton et al. (esp. the ex-president) were subtly, but very intentionally, trying to remind voters that, oh, in case you didn't notice, Barack Obama is black. I think the Clintons made a strategic decision of sorts to go ahead and p.o. the darker-skinned citizens of South Carolina, which they were almost certainly gonna lose anyway, so that they could pigeonhole Obama, so to speak, as "the black candidate" for the rest of the country. Any doubts about whether this was really intentional should've been put to rest when Bill "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" Clinton made the brilliant observation that Jesse Jackson had also won South Carolina primaries on account (by Clinton's obvious implication) of his being black...this, after the race-baiting had already been given significant scrutiny in the run-up to the vote.
Kinda reminds me why I was just a little bit happy to see that bastard get impeached, even if it was by a gaggle of Republican hypocrites. But hey, whatever it takes to win, right?
The question, of course, is whether it will help or hurt Billary come Tuesday. It obviously hurt in SC, but alas, I tend to think it might serve its purpose to some extent in other parts of the country (i.e., all the parts where blacks don't make up 50% of the electorate, which is most of them). Of course, in an earlier post, I submitted that I was somewhat hopeful that most of America was past the point where it would let racism be an issue, and to some extent, I retain that hope. What I was forgetting, I think, is how much politics is a game of fractions and tiny perceentages -- in a very close contest, it's hardly necessary that the Clintons' slimy, racist appeals be bought by a significant minority, let alone majority, of voters. If only, say, five percent here and there are primitive enough to be swayed by such nastiness, that could be more than enough to get her the nom in the long run.
But again, I really don't know if it will have the intended effect. It could even backfire -- let's hope so. (Of course, to be precise, I am speaking about overall numbers; obviously, it *has* angered a great many individuals who might have voted for H.C. otherwise, but it may be that they will be outnumbered, overall, by those who still can't cotton to some "uppity negro" aspiring to the *White* House.)
And of course, the race issue is just one aspect of the contest overall, such that we'll never be able to disentagle it entirely from all the other perceived pros and cons that might sway people to vote for one or the other. For example, a great many women, especially older ones, seem inclined to vote for Clinton for the relatively positive (though not necessarily much less stupid) reason that she is a she. Even absent the race-baiting, that - and the many other perceived pros and cons of both candidates - might be enough to give her a victory.
Indeed, though I (like virtually *everyone* else, I assume) have done pretty poorly with the electoral prognosticating in this particulary wild primary season, I am inclined to believe that the lady Clinton enjoys a slight (but even slight can be significant) advantage going into this most critical of rounds. Because, much as one might sometimes wish that general population was more tuned in to what's happening in the world, the fact is that the vast majority barely know, as Randy Newman might put it, their asses from a hole in the ground, and while Obama may be all the rage amongst the relatively well-educated and informed (and exit polls suggest that to be the case) most people, by definitional neccesity, are relatively clueless and dim-witted. But then, even the most ignorant of voters (excluding the deaf ones) could hardly have failed to hear the name Clinton repeated ad nauseam on their boobtubes these last 15 or so years...And so, methinks that in these 20-some Super Tuesday states she could well have that same dreaded name-recognition advantage that contrubted hugely to burdening the country with another loser Bush presidency these past 7 years.
Yes, it seems that in spite of the enormous crowds he continues to attract, Clinton could well beat Obama by a bit overall come Tuesday. Again, of course, I hope I'm wrong, and certainly there are some signs that could be taken as indictating that he is closingthe gap, but if I absolutely had to put money on it, I'd expect her to have a lead come Wednesday.
That said, and as I've alluded to in the title of this post, it seems that whoever wins on Tuesday is extremely unlikely to do so by a big enough outcome to make the ultimate outcome a certainty. Whatever happens Tuesday, it seems that neither Obama or Clinton will be able to make a credible claim on the nomination 'til many weeks later, at the earliest.
* 'Course, that's on the Dem side. The 'Publicans' nominee may well be decided, more or less, within the week. Or rather, to be precise, it may well have been decided, in effect, when wacky old John McCain managed to knock Romney off yet again in Florida. Yup, in spite of the distaste, if not downright hatred, he seems to inspire in conservative blowhards like Limbaugh and, uh, what's-his-name...the religious twit who thought Spongebob promoted homosexuality -- Oh yeah, Dobson...it seems that the old bugger has managed to come out atop the extremely crowded Republican field. Not bad for a guy who many people had written off as done for back in the summer, though I have to think it has more to do with the 'Publicans identity issues and the crowded, long-unsettled field than McCain's own appeal to most Republican voters. They just couldn't quite buy Romney's latter-day conversion (haha) to basic Republican planks like being anti-gay and anti-abortion, not to mention his freaky-deaky Mormonism, and, as one of this blog's readers pointed out, I guess enough of the party establishment likewise couldn't stomach the more populist aspects of Huckabee's candidacy to swing their support behind him. And so, with votes being split several ways in every primary, guess McCain just emerged as the not particularly popular, but least un-popular choice for early 'Publican voters. And, at least by all appearances, and especially with Huckabee still in the race to siphon away some of the religious-nut votes, it don't look like Romney will have a chance to catch McCain. And indeed, since most o' the Republican contests are winner-take-all, as opposed to proportionally awarded like the Dem ones, it's quite possible that McCain will come out of Tuesday with a virtual lock on the nomination.
* And of course, while that may dismay a lot of right-wingers, McCain may well be his party's best candidate for the general election, given his appeal to people who aren't, y'know, stoopid right-wingers. Like I've said meself, for example, while I find a good deal of McCain's actions and positions to be highly hypocritical, to say nothing of flat wrong in various cases, he certainly strikes me as the least of the potential Republican evils. Indeed, if it comes down to a contest b/t him and Clintons, I can't say, at this point, that I'd vote for her, or even necessarily prefer her. Probably wouldn't vote for him either, but honestly, much as I disagree with some of his postions (he *is* still a Republican, after all, in spite of what some of his own part's critics might say), I think he has shown himself to moderate and sensible enough for the most part that I prolly wouldn't mind the fact that he's anti-abortion, for example (cos hey, Roe v. Wade ain't gonna get overturned anyway, and if it ever does, let's face it, that'd be the Republicans writing their own political death warrant until it were reinstated again)...And then there's the fact that I find Clinton herself pretty damn dislikable.
And, as to much of the preceding paragraph, I daresay a lotta voters may feel the same way. I mean, I still think that Clinton should be able to beat McCain or any other Republican in a general, but given the antipathy she inspires in so many and his own popularity with moderates and independents, I think the old guy would have a pretty decent chance of beating her.
* Now, if it were Obama against McCain on the other hand, I tend to think McCain would have a harder time. True, I the whole race issue still seems to be a bit of an unknown, but I think that Obama's relative youth and charisma would contrast too strongly with the septagenarian for him to keep up, particulary given the fact that Obama (unlike Clinton) has himself proven to be pretty popular with moderates and independents alike.
...
Oh, but who knows what will happen? As I've said before, I can see no option better than an Obama v. McCain general, and it looks like at least half of that combo may get locked in on Tuesday, but as all the craziness thus far has amply demonstrated, there's just no tellin' what'll actually end up happenin'.
Whatever it is, I reckon I'll weigh-in with my own thoughts on it sometime in the aftermath, but for now, I reckon I'm ready to just see what them crazy American voters have to say.
***
* The Democratic race got particularly ugly there for a while (no?) with someone (well, several someones) "playing the race card" rather shamelessly, and I don't think it was the black guy...Yup, I agree with the opinion of various other observers who think that Clinton et al. (esp. the ex-president) were subtly, but very intentionally, trying to remind voters that, oh, in case you didn't notice, Barack Obama is black. I think the Clintons made a strategic decision of sorts to go ahead and p.o. the darker-skinned citizens of South Carolina, which they were almost certainly gonna lose anyway, so that they could pigeonhole Obama, so to speak, as "the black candidate" for the rest of the country. Any doubts about whether this was really intentional should've been put to rest when Bill "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" Clinton made the brilliant observation that Jesse Jackson had also won South Carolina primaries on account (by Clinton's obvious implication) of his being black...this, after the race-baiting had already been given significant scrutiny in the run-up to the vote.
Kinda reminds me why I was just a little bit happy to see that bastard get impeached, even if it was by a gaggle of Republican hypocrites. But hey, whatever it takes to win, right?
The question, of course, is whether it will help or hurt Billary come Tuesday. It obviously hurt in SC, but alas, I tend to think it might serve its purpose to some extent in other parts of the country (i.e., all the parts where blacks don't make up 50% of the electorate, which is most of them). Of course, in an earlier post, I submitted that I was somewhat hopeful that most of America was past the point where it would let racism be an issue, and to some extent, I retain that hope. What I was forgetting, I think, is how much politics is a game of fractions and tiny perceentages -- in a very close contest, it's hardly necessary that the Clintons' slimy, racist appeals be bought by a significant minority, let alone majority, of voters. If only, say, five percent here and there are primitive enough to be swayed by such nastiness, that could be more than enough to get her the nom in the long run.
But again, I really don't know if it will have the intended effect. It could even backfire -- let's hope so. (Of course, to be precise, I am speaking about overall numbers; obviously, it *has* angered a great many individuals who might have voted for H.C. otherwise, but it may be that they will be outnumbered, overall, by those who still can't cotton to some "uppity negro" aspiring to the *White* House.)
And of course, the race issue is just one aspect of the contest overall, such that we'll never be able to disentagle it entirely from all the other perceived pros and cons that might sway people to vote for one or the other. For example, a great many women, especially older ones, seem inclined to vote for Clinton for the relatively positive (though not necessarily much less stupid) reason that she is a she. Even absent the race-baiting, that - and the many other perceived pros and cons of both candidates - might be enough to give her a victory.
Indeed, though I (like virtually *everyone* else, I assume) have done pretty poorly with the electoral prognosticating in this particulary wild primary season, I am inclined to believe that the lady Clinton enjoys a slight (but even slight can be significant) advantage going into this most critical of rounds. Because, much as one might sometimes wish that general population was more tuned in to what's happening in the world, the fact is that the vast majority barely know, as Randy Newman might put it, their asses from a hole in the ground, and while Obama may be all the rage amongst the relatively well-educated and informed (and exit polls suggest that to be the case) most people, by definitional neccesity, are relatively clueless and dim-witted. But then, even the most ignorant of voters (excluding the deaf ones) could hardly have failed to hear the name Clinton repeated ad nauseam on their boobtubes these last 15 or so years...And so, methinks that in these 20-some Super Tuesday states she could well have that same dreaded name-recognition advantage that contrubted hugely to burdening the country with another loser Bush presidency these past 7 years.
Yes, it seems that in spite of the enormous crowds he continues to attract, Clinton could well beat Obama by a bit overall come Tuesday. Again, of course, I hope I'm wrong, and certainly there are some signs that could be taken as indictating that he is closingthe gap, but if I absolutely had to put money on it, I'd expect her to have a lead come Wednesday.
That said, and as I've alluded to in the title of this post, it seems that whoever wins on Tuesday is extremely unlikely to do so by a big enough outcome to make the ultimate outcome a certainty. Whatever happens Tuesday, it seems that neither Obama or Clinton will be able to make a credible claim on the nomination 'til many weeks later, at the earliest.
* 'Course, that's on the Dem side. The 'Publicans' nominee may well be decided, more or less, within the week. Or rather, to be precise, it may well have been decided, in effect, when wacky old John McCain managed to knock Romney off yet again in Florida. Yup, in spite of the distaste, if not downright hatred, he seems to inspire in conservative blowhards like Limbaugh and, uh, what's-his-name...the religious twit who thought Spongebob promoted homosexuality -- Oh yeah, Dobson...it seems that the old bugger has managed to come out atop the extremely crowded Republican field. Not bad for a guy who many people had written off as done for back in the summer, though I have to think it has more to do with the 'Publicans identity issues and the crowded, long-unsettled field than McCain's own appeal to most Republican voters. They just couldn't quite buy Romney's latter-day conversion (haha) to basic Republican planks like being anti-gay and anti-abortion, not to mention his freaky-deaky Mormonism, and, as one of this blog's readers pointed out, I guess enough of the party establishment likewise couldn't stomach the more populist aspects of Huckabee's candidacy to swing their support behind him. And so, with votes being split several ways in every primary, guess McCain just emerged as the not particularly popular, but least un-popular choice for early 'Publican voters. And, at least by all appearances, and especially with Huckabee still in the race to siphon away some of the religious-nut votes, it don't look like Romney will have a chance to catch McCain. And indeed, since most o' the Republican contests are winner-take-all, as opposed to proportionally awarded like the Dem ones, it's quite possible that McCain will come out of Tuesday with a virtual lock on the nomination.
* And of course, while that may dismay a lot of right-wingers, McCain may well be his party's best candidate for the general election, given his appeal to people who aren't, y'know, stoopid right-wingers. Like I've said meself, for example, while I find a good deal of McCain's actions and positions to be highly hypocritical, to say nothing of flat wrong in various cases, he certainly strikes me as the least of the potential Republican evils. Indeed, if it comes down to a contest b/t him and Clintons, I can't say, at this point, that I'd vote for her, or even necessarily prefer her. Probably wouldn't vote for him either, but honestly, much as I disagree with some of his postions (he *is* still a Republican, after all, in spite of what some of his own part's critics might say), I think he has shown himself to moderate and sensible enough for the most part that I prolly wouldn't mind the fact that he's anti-abortion, for example (cos hey, Roe v. Wade ain't gonna get overturned anyway, and if it ever does, let's face it, that'd be the Republicans writing their own political death warrant until it were reinstated again)...And then there's the fact that I find Clinton herself pretty damn dislikable.
And, as to much of the preceding paragraph, I daresay a lotta voters may feel the same way. I mean, I still think that Clinton should be able to beat McCain or any other Republican in a general, but given the antipathy she inspires in so many and his own popularity with moderates and independents, I think the old guy would have a pretty decent chance of beating her.
* Now, if it were Obama against McCain on the other hand, I tend to think McCain would have a harder time. True, I the whole race issue still seems to be a bit of an unknown, but I think that Obama's relative youth and charisma would contrast too strongly with the septagenarian for him to keep up, particulary given the fact that Obama (unlike Clinton) has himself proven to be pretty popular with moderates and independents alike.
...
Oh, but who knows what will happen? As I've said before, I can see no option better than an Obama v. McCain general, and it looks like at least half of that combo may get locked in on Tuesday, but as all the craziness thus far has amply demonstrated, there's just no tellin' what'll actually end up happenin'.
Whatever it is, I reckon I'll weigh-in with my own thoughts on it sometime in the aftermath, but for now, I reckon I'm ready to just see what them crazy American voters have to say.
***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)