“Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn’t won any of the significant states — outside of Illinois? That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama.”
—Mark Penn, Chief Strategist for the Clinton campaign
By my count, if you are from Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, or the District of Columbia, the Democratic Party establishment thinks you’re insignificant.
Clearly the party is powered by idiots. These guys have won majority of the popular vote only once in the last 27 years! Triangulation my ass.
I’m so glad idiots like these will have been the first ones against the wall when the revolution came.
Hillary has moved from a woman-idiot Chief Strategist to a male-idiot. And name me one political party not powered by idiots. Elections are less about finding the right candidate anymore and more about voting for who will f*ck-up the least.
Yours truly from Iowa,
–Tony
Re: my link on “District of Columbia”, check out the quote at the bottom of this article.
@Tony Bibbs: I don’t think the political strategists of the Republican Party are idiots. They have the minority position on almost every issue for my entire lifetime but still managed many wins. Thankfully, the 50%+1 strategy is finally backfiring. Remember also, that the Democratic establishment strategists were not happy about the Howard Dean’s 50 state strategy, and yet it netted a retake of the House and a nominal retake of the Senate in 2006: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dean#50-state_strategy . I would call that, in the face of criticism, “not idiotic.”
I believe the “fuck-it-up-the-least” was the strategy employed in nominating Kerry in 2004 (see the link above). It is s clear that, by nominating either Barrack Obama or Hillary Clinton, that is not the strategy this time—last I checked the former was still black, and the latter was still a woman… but McCain is still an old white dude.
I don’t know I guess I see it still in the damage control department. I’m a firm independent and as I see it a Republican vote will guarantee the current route in Iraq will only continue down it’s pitiful path. From that standpoint the Democrats would do considerable less damage because they’ll at least stop the bleeding. Now you might argue they could even make progress there but my vote will be to stop the bleeding…progress in Iraq would be the cherry on top. Then again, with respects to immigration and gun control I find my self firmly “red” but feel those two issues this election season get trumped by Iraq and by voting blue I’m hoping that the the checks-and-balances will work out in my favor on those two issues.
Also, I’m not sure I follow the Barrack-black, Hillary-woman comment with reference to all that fuck-it-up-the-least stuff.
Oh, and thanks for the political post. I like talking politics but too many sissies in my circle of friends find the subject taboo leaving me to debate with myself far too often (hey, at leas that way I always win). Keep ’em coming.
–Tony
Tony,
I’m talking strategy with this post, not politics.
Specifically, I feel that politicians and their strategists should never use words that are the state-by-state equivalent of “Which of your children do you like best?” The instant they cast things on those terms, they propagate this horrible and mistaken right-wing frame of “Red State-Blue State” division: “Flyover states,” “jesusland,” etc. I don’t hail from any of the states this strategist dismissed (though my mom’s family is from Utah), but you do (Iowa), but I find his words both hurtful and dumb.
Desperation is no excuse for stupidity.
My politics is very clear in this blog (hint) which I only had a one year moratorium on because the Democratic party exceeded by expectation in 2006 (by a little…I was predicting a win of the house and a half seat loss of the senate). I don’t often blog politics because I don’t like rereading my political posts.
As for the “the Barrack[sic]-black, Hillary-woman comment,” if the democratic party felt that a conservative “anything-but-Bush” strategy that they did in 2004 was going to work, they would have fielded a old white dude. That was the party strategy back then if you read the link I posted from a neutral-point-of-view wikipedia.
Talking Points Memo and the New York Times blog picks up the same quote and read the same thing from it.
I hope the analysis points to certain clues between the old strategy and the new one—and I’m not talking “old media” and “new media” here, I’m talking triangulation vs. 50 state—as well as a changing of the guard—and I’m not talking between Hillary and Barack, I’m talking about political strategists.
You are right on Terry. Hillary is as old school Democratic party as you can get though, so it really should come as no surprise.
There is one primary-related issue I agree with her on. The delegates from Florida and Michigan should count. I don’t care if these guys did things to piss off “The Party,” not counting votes should be an exclusive tactic of the Republican party. If that means Hillary wins, so be it. Democracy doesn’t always work out the way we’d like it to.
Clearly the right thing to do is to give Michigan and Florida a voice, but the situation is at an impasse (between the states and the party, between Obama and Hillary). After all, in Michigan, Hillary Clinton was the only name on the ballot because the others removed themselves. Also, I bet if a primary vote was done this time around, the result in Florida would be very different.
So if you seat them, how?
I don’t know.
It also bothers me that the strongest advocates of “give Michigan and Florida a seat” come from the “win at all costs” “50%+1” camp in the Republican party. When the very people who took us to war in Iraq to win a midterm elections, divided this country into Red and Blue to win a presidential election, are suggesting something, it is fitting and proper to question both their motives, their meme, there morals, and cast that on any solution to the situation at hand.
It’s in these way that the Obama rule of “changing the rules mid-game” holds force: the punishment the DNC put on those states was way too harsh, though nobody considered it might affect the outcome. Now that we realize it might, there is no mechanism to give them a fair voice because that ship has already sailed.
In this light, a delayed caucus may seem as the most equitable, of a set of poor solutions. 🙁
Clearly the folks who want the delegates counted are from the Clinton camp and their motives are transparent. But just because bad people support a cause does not make the cause bad. I think Florida should be counted as is. Yes folks in Florida might vote differently now, but who knows. Maybe folks in New Hampshire and Iowa would too. Michigan is obviously much more messed up and something like what you suggested (a delayed caucus) would have to be done.
I can’t believe these people ever got elected the first time.
I don’t know whether to be glad Ross Perot ran because it broke up 30 years or republican dominance, or to be angry because it allowed incompetence to rule the Democratic political campaign strategy.
I’m going with angry.
Colbert: Size Matters