Rolling my eyes
In a tantrum that's typical of many self-indulgent liberal bloggers, Chris Bowers at Open Left says he'll leave the Democratic Party if the superdelegates determine the nominee. While I get his point - it's not a good premise to have roughly 800 Democratic officials determine the nominee rather than the popular vote - he's more than overreacting to this thing for a variety of reasons ...
- One problem with his rationale is what determines the popular vote? Is it a total of all the folks who voted across the country, which may favor Hillary Clinton? Is it a total of states won, which may favor Barack Obama? Is it the number of pledged delegates, which may favor either candidate?
- And, if it's pledged delegates, than how is that 'fair' according to Bowers's logic? Thanks to proportional awarding of delegates, you've got Clinton and Obama almost splitting delegates at every turn with one or other sometimes winning delegate counts but not popular votes.
- Up until the 1960s, Democratic party bosses did nominate the president and, you know what, they ultimately gave us some damn good candidates (Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy). Since going to this popular vote thing, we've been stuck with some rather lackluster folks running for the nation's top office.
- Is this worth leaving the party over? Regardless, this thing is going down to the wire and both candidates are going to be within a hair of each other, and I think that's quite good. It's a pair of strong, viable candidates who are turning out voters in record numbers, and, while I strongly favor Obama, I'm quite content with either candidate in the general election.
- One problem with his rationale is what determines the popular vote? Is it a total of all the folks who voted across the country, which may favor Hillary Clinton? Is it a total of states won, which may favor Barack Obama? Is it the number of pledged delegates, which may favor either candidate?
- And, if it's pledged delegates, than how is that 'fair' according to Bowers's logic? Thanks to proportional awarding of delegates, you've got Clinton and Obama almost splitting delegates at every turn with one or other sometimes winning delegate counts but not popular votes.
- Up until the 1960s, Democratic party bosses did nominate the president and, you know what, they ultimately gave us some damn good candidates (Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy). Since going to this popular vote thing, we've been stuck with some rather lackluster folks running for the nation's top office.
- Is this worth leaving the party over? Regardless, this thing is going down to the wire and both candidates are going to be within a hair of each other, and I think that's quite good. It's a pair of strong, viable candidates who are turning out voters in record numbers, and, while I strongly favor Obama, I'm quite content with either candidate in the general election.
posted by Jmac at 10:53 AM
4 Comments:
"many self-indulgent liberal bloggers"
Pot, meet Kettle.
Moron, meet yourself.
Thanks for playing though.
I can't believe how many more Dems than Repubs have cast votes all over the country.
Or in GA. Or, for that matter, that Obama won Oconee and Oglethorpe Counties, all that bodes really well for Democrats everywhere. This is not the time to leave the party, not when we are finally starting to make the money and established folks pay attention. It is great that the potential shenanigans of the super delegates, and the behind the scenes arm twisting that are going on are out in the open.
Yesterdays "conspiracy theorists" are turning out to be this weeks op-eders in the NYTimes.
We could also scrap this whole ridiculous primary system and move to a brief campaign with as many candidates as possible running, plus instant runoff voting. That would probably lead to the best possible candidate being elected and the least amount of money wasted and influence bought.
Post a Comment
<< Home