The Candidates
Featured Archives
There are many amazing things about the Democratic race, which one of my friends labeled “like the electoral college, but more random.” Toward the top of my list is certainly the Texas Primacaucus, although Hillary winning NV by 6 points, but receiving fewer delegates is up there.
But the absolute top of the list is how much the outcome of the race has depended on the ordering of the contests. Imagine, for example, where things would stand if Georgia, Alabama and a few caucus states hadn’t moved their dates up to Super Tuesday, but Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas had, in fact, moved up. This race would likely have been over February 3, with calls for Obama to get out reaching the same crescendo that the calls against Hillary are reaching.
Of course, the whole way we got to this position was Obama’s magical “ten in a row” during February. But Maryland, DC, Virginia, Wisconsin, Louisiana, Hawai’i, Maine, Washington and Nebraska were all races that he was supposed to win — and by large margins at that — with the arguable exception of Wisconsin. Imagine if those races had instead been Indiana, Kentucky, Rhode Island, West Virginia, and a couple of Super Tuesday states (say, MA and TN). The storyline would be completely different.
What a way to pick a President.
April 3rd, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Democracy is still the worst form of government….. except all the others that have been tried
April 3rd, 2008 at 2:28 pm
I’m glad it wasn’t over Feb 3.
New Insider Advantage poll for PA has Clinton – 45% and Obama 42%.
April 3rd, 2008 at 2:36 pm
I’m still convinced that Clinton will win by a comfortable margin in PA. Remember the polls tightened up considerably in places like MA and CA before Super Tuesday and Obama was leading by quite a bit in NH before the primary. Prepare for the Bradley effect
April 3rd, 2008 at 2:47 pm
If the Dems were to allocate their delegates, like the GOP, on a winner-take-all basis, their race would also be over…and Hillary would be the presumptive nominee.
April 3rd, 2008 at 4:15 pm
To address the unfairness of the randomness that you point out, one (thoroughly impractical) idea that I have long pondered has been for the serious candidates themselves to determine the order of the early primaries, with head to head match-ups, in the same manner that parties to a dispute typically settle on an arbitrator.
Have Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, Biden, etc., list their prefernces in order from 1 to 51 (or whatever). For each pair, go down the two lists until you get a match. If a third or a fourth candidate “matches” on that state also, then that candidate would also be on the ballot in that state. To make all of the contests meaningful, the rule could be that no one who loses any state on this round can get any delegates at all from that state.
Hopefully, in whatever state “matched” for the pair of, say, Dodd and Gravel, one of the more serious candidates would also get on the ballot by “matching” one or both of them in that state. (Perhaps the candidates would have to “pay [the states] to play” — not such a wild notion, given the MI and FL situation.)
This would facilitate the retail politics that ought to characterize the early rounds, and it would also give the less well-known candidates a fighting chance. It would also quickly reveal weaknesses — such as if, for instance, Richardson beat Clinton in their matche state of, say, Wyoming, or something like that.
[I only tried this as a thought experiment one time -- in 1984. I determined that Alan Cranston would have faced Reuben Askew in Delaware. Then I got bored with the project.]
Apologies if I have discussed this on this site before. (Actually, I think I mentioned it once on MEA, to a chorus of yawns and blank stares.)
April 3rd, 2008 at 5:19 pm
I can’t honestly say that the GOP primary system is much better. Yes, we have a nominee now, but he is out of line with the party on critical issues, is a little too cozy with some of our strongest opponents, and may very well only run for one term. I can gaurentee you that the DNC’s nominee will be a better representative of their party than McCain can be of ours.
I think the best primary system is a compressed schedule (Feb-May), with something like five primaries a week, and then have the conventions in June. Delegate allocation should be porportional by percentage of the vote won, and all primaries should be closed, with registration 100+ days in advance.
April 3rd, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Rudy Giuliani would be our nominee if not for the same reasons.
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:31 pm
>he is out of line with the party on critical issues,
Translation: Act prefers Mitt.
>and may very well only run for one term.
Translation: Act has a fantasy that Mitt can still be prez if only McCain will select him for VP so that Mitt doesn’t actually have to compete for votes.
>Delegate allocation should be porportional by percentage of the vote won
Translation: Mitt couldn’t win under the current system, so therefore it must be a bad system.
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:36 pm
One good aspect of the Dem system is the proportional allocation, although it does mean that the race lasts longer when between two good candidates.
This means that every vote counts, so candidates campaign in a state even if they can’t win, because they want to get those extra delegates.
Winner takes all means that the candidates only focus on states they can win, which creates the whole “swing state” concept where only a few states really matter.
The latter is better preparation for running for President (in the general), but I’m not sure its a good thing.
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:52 pm
The best solution probably is a hybrid proportional/WTA system, such as most states have in the GOP. For example, California’s system of WTA by congressional district, plus a kicker of WTA to the winner of the state. Or Texas’ system of two to the winner of a CD, with one to the runner-up (unless the winner gets >50%) with a kicker at the state level that is proportional unless the winner gets >50%.
Strict proportional is insane, as the Dems are learning. Why anyone would want to follow them over that cliff, I can’t imagine.
Here’s a prediction that I feel 100% confident in making: The changes made to the two parties’ processes in the next cycle will result in a lot more movement by the Dems toward the Rep system, than vice versa.
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Yeah by now I’m pretty sure we’re all up to snuff on Act’s act. Blah blah blah – McCain is out of step. Blah blah blah we need a “conservative” VP. McCain has ro pick Romney so that somehow the RomFetish can live on in ‘12 – since, you know, the regular folks aren’t going to actually vote for him.
Seriously – primary season has been over for WEEKS. Yet a handful on here can only make comments that center around pushing Mitt. Forget the election – forget this election, forget looking to find the best way to holding power – as long as Dear Leader Mitt is positioned for glory in ‘12 – that’s all that matters.
It gets tiring.
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:54 pm
proportional/WTA seems to work well. It certainly worked in CA, where all the candidates gave it a go – and McCain’s victory was decisive (rather than a close win, like Florida which resulted in him taking all the delegates).
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Adam,
The pro-Mitt brigade are having a big push to get him on the ticket, as if he isn’t then his chances in 2012 are miniscule. Mitt has no base, and no job to go back too if he is not part of a McCain Administration. His only hope would be to win the MA Governor’s mansion in 2010, but that’s unlikely to happen (Patrick could just replay all the comments Mitt made about MA during the primary season).
Mitt as VP makes some sense. It would strengthen the chances of winning the Western states, and provide a sense of history (a mormon in the White House?) Additionally, Mitt and his friends have deep pockets, which will help against Obama. He also probably locks in NH and Michigan.
However, McCain & Mitt don’t get on well, and Mitt is viewed with suspicion among many independents. Its probably not a smart ticket.
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:17 pm
“However, McCain & Mitt don’t get on well, and Mitt is viewed with suspicion among many independents. Its probably not a smart ticket.”
Hear hear. I don’t think Mitt locks in either MI or NH though. There’s a better chance he locks out OH and PA. To which I say, “No thanks”.
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:34 pm
It still amazes me what sore losers the Romney supporters are. The sound almost Clintonian. “Mitt had a right to the nomination” “Anyone who opposes Romney is either liberal/bigoted” I’m getting very weary of this absurdity
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Adam,
MA candidates traditionally do very well in NH (Kerry defeated Bush, despite Bush defeating Gore in 2000). Commentators like the Fix point out that McCain, as PONH, has a big chance to put rapidly turning blue NH back in the red column. A MA VP would probably lock that in.
As far as MI goes, they haven’t had many POTUS candidates there (bar Gerald Ford). If Mitt spends a lot of time there, emphasizing his MI roots and the GOP plans for the economy then I think that state goes red too.
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:42 pm
But I should add (given how pro-Mitt my #16 sounds) that Mitt is a real drag in gaining the blue-collar votes to McCain’s side. And he wouldn’t encourage the Evangelical Army to turnout in force (both as voters and volunteers).
If McCain wants a young executive with economic experience, then Pawlenty & Sanford make the most sense. They also don’t tick off the evangelical right like Rudy would.
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:46 pm
I have argued in the past that Mitt might be a help in Michigan. I’ve somewhat changed my mind.
He did well in the primary for two reasons: one, he was a favorite son of sorts; and two, he pandered to the auto industry, which McCain refused to do.
I have nothing against a bit of pandering — I’m enough of a political realist to accept that everyone does it, so I’m not criticizing Romney for doing it. The problem is that he can’t do it in the general — so if he goes back to Michigan and tries to repeat what he said in the primary, I’m sure the Dems will point out that what Mitt says doesn’t count, because McCain is the prez nominee.
I also question the wisdom of having a venture capitalist on the ticket given the current populist mood. I think the Dems would use Romney’s resume (which should be a strength) as a club to beat him with. Not fair, but I think it will happen anyway.
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:48 pm
McCain is a pretty sorry pick. It still blows my mind that it boiled down to this for conservatives. Romney would sweeten the ticket a bit but ultimately I don’t think it would make any substantial difference, and working in a high tax open border administration will probably hurt Romney’s chances a few years on. I heard there’s a new guy from Georgia was it? gonna throw in. I’ll take a real good look at him if he does.
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Jaype,
But I would argue that Independents, 44 % of the NH electorate, would not be favorably disposed to Mitt. And when you outspend your opponent 3:1 or more in a primary and still lose, it’s a safe bet that you can’t make up the difference with a group of Independents that’s already supicious of you.
And on MI, Mitt didn’t do as well among crossover Dems and Indies as McCain and MI effectively had no Dem primary. Maybe Mitt could pull over MI because of his family connections – but I’m not at all convinced he could. Frankly I don’t think it’s worth the risk – but I think we pretty much agree on that.
Rudy would tick off the evangelical right. It’s too bad. I think he could be a good pick for AG – after the election. That way it won’t matter. But I am warming up to Pawlenty. He’s solid. Hoeven and Carcieri wouldn’t hurt the ticket either.
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:53 pm
It would be nice to see a Veep from a state that doesn’t get alot of President/VP candidates out of it. For Carcieri, maybe the favorite son thing could tip Little Rhody (which would be hilarious Obama losing MA and RI).
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Carcieri is a really interesting pick. It would be better against Obama, as it would increase his support among Catholics (does that help the Evangelical Army? probably not), and indicate a willingness to try and win states in the NE.
The latter would probably see him win NH, and make him very competitive in RI & PA (has any major candidate been from RI before? surely that would help them vote red for the first time in a long time!)
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:04 pm
There has to this point, never been a major party nominee from Rhode Island. Arizona and Rhode Island. Now that is a broad spectrum of America right there.
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:06 pm
“I also question the wisdom of having a venture capitalist on the ticket given the current populist mood. I think the Dems would use Romney’s resume (which should be a strength) as a club to beat him with. Not fair, but I think it will happen anyway.”
I’ve thought about that too, and was one of my concerns with him as the top pick. I don’t think it disqualifies him from consideration given his other strengths, but it is definately something to consider.
One other factor to consider: Obama polls very well for a Democrat in Nevada and Colorado, and could easily flip both states. A candidate with strong support among a key voting block there might help keep 14 electoral votes red.
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Sean, there aren’t many hispanic GOP figures with the seniority to be a credible VP pick. Martinez would be great, but isn’t eligable.
If McCain was really worried about NV/CO, he could pick Ensign. Much like Clinton/Gore – doubling down on a region. But I don’t think that’s his best pick.
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Like I’ve said before, Carcieri is really growing on me as a potential VP. He won 54% of the Catholic vote and 60% of the Protestant vote in his 2006 re-election bid; as compared to his 51% overall margin. He won 62% of independents. And in these same exit polls, 63% wanted Democrats to control the senate compared to 24% who wanted Republicans. The demographics look pretty good. The only thing that worries me is Rhode Island appears to be a fairly affluent state; 70% of people make over 50k. Carcieri comes from what constitutes a working class background for Rhode Island (he’s the son of a teacher), but it’s not clear how he’d play in less affluent areas. He did wonderfully in the 50-75k demographic, well in the 30-50k demographic and predictably he did poorly below 30k demographics. But, the percentage’s for the poorer demographics were too low to be terribly meaningful.
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Yes, I make no secret out of my continued support for Mitt, I want him to be VP, and I want him in the Oval in four years. I have no problem if McCain does nothing but keep the chair warm.
BUT, I would gladly have taken three dozen other candidates over McCain. Romney would be best, but Thompson, Gingrich, Huckabee (because I think he could be bullied into toeing the conservative line), and many others would be just fine.
Instead, we get stuck with an elderly moderate on immigration, campaign finance, the environment, and who has a questionable record on taxes, and who seems to have little to no interest in social issues. The man has better relations with Ted Kennedy (liberal) and Joe Liberman (ditto) than many in his own party.
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:28 pm
I was for Mitt hardcore, but I greatly prefer winner-take all. One less step toward a European-style parliament that gets even less done than our own Congress.
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Rudy Giuliani on Hannity & Colmes this evening (Part 1):
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?videoId=9f183402-13fe-476b-91b5-f7a5bd54455a&sMPlaylistID=
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Giuliani on Hannity & Colmes (Part 2):
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?videoId=9f183402-13fe-476b-91b5-f7a5bd54455a&sMPlaylistID=
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:18 pm
ACT, you hang in there…..you make lots and lots of great points, many of which go unchallenged, and those that are challenged are very weak.
April 9th, 2008 at 4:00 am
[...] Sean Oxendine is appalled by the Democratic nomination process, which he reports that one of his friends calls, “like the electoral college, but more random.†But, Oxendine says, the most disturbing element of this “process” is the impact of the order in which primaries and caucuses fall on momentum, delegate counts, candidate withdrawals, and nominations. He writes: Imagine, for example, where things would stand if Georgia, Alabama and a few caucus states hadn’t moved their dates up to Super Tuesday, but Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas had, in fact, moved up. This race would likely have been over February 3, with calls for Obama to get out reaching the same crescendo that the calls against Hillary are reaching. [...]