Hillary Clinton wins Iowa 49.9-49.6 and nets a 27-21 delegate lead.
Bernie Sanders wins New Hampshire 60.0-38.4 and nets a 13-13 delegate tie
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
Warm-ups are over
Rather than address the horse race, I'd like to talk about why these contests are important and irrelevant at the same time.
First, the criticism.
Iowa doesn't matter. Except when it does. Of the 14 elections since 1972 (yes, this venerated tradition is only 44 years old) without an incumbent, the ultimate candidate has only won 8 times and only three of those eventually became President. It is small, overwhelmingly white and rural. Evangelical Christians have massive, outsized sway. Worst of all it continues the nation's dependence and painful addiction to corn. If you want a future in national politics you can never vote against ethanol or corn syrup subsidies.
New Hampshire doesn't matter. Except when it does. New Hampshire has only predicted the correct candidate 8 out of 14 times since 1972, only 4 of which eventually became President. It is small, overwhelmingly white and rural. Libertarians have massive, outsized sway.
Following those two we get South Carolina. It is also small, deeply evangelical, extremely white (but slightly less than the first two...thanks African Americans). Then, there is Nevada, small, deeply libertarian and extremely white (but slightly less than the first two...thanks Hispanics). Are you sensing a theme here?
So, we have geographic balance with a Midwest, New England, Southern and Mountain-West state (sorry West Coast or Mid-Atlantic states). We have states with deep Evangelical and Libertarian traditions (sorry secularists and Progressives). We have states that are predominantly white (sorry minorities). By the time those four, fairly unrepresentative, states, are settled the race usually is as well. Before most people even have a chance to register their support in anything other thanSupreme Court Free Speech donations the race is over.
New Hampshire and Iowa do take their roles seriously in vetting candidates and being small allows for the retail politics that give charismatic insurgent/non-establishment candidates a chance to get noticed. Two elections in a row in Iowa on the Democratic side we have seen a, purportedly-liberal, outsider candidate swell to surprising support over the inevitable Clinton machine (more on Third Way, Clintonian politics to come at some point). On the Republican side we've seen Gov. Mike Huckabee and clown-troll Donald Trump race to victory over establishment favorites. In New Hampshire we've seen popular politicians from neighboring states (Sanders and Romney) and establishment favorites (Clinton '08 and Romeny) win....oh and rain-soaked-basketball Donald Trump won (but with moderate, Rockafeller Republican John Kasich doing very well as a rally round candidate).
So, the system works? We get insurgent and Quixotic candidates garnering enough attention to, in theory, get enough delegates and attention for their pet issues to affect the party platform and keep the ultimate winner honest. Establishment candidates get a chance to hone their message, get their ground game in order (or not.... Sec. Clinton) and hopefully not take too many hits from the wings of their parties.
The bigger problem isn't so much with the process as it is with the media circus and the horse-race coverage we get from them. That however, is a story for another day
First, the criticism.
Iowa doesn't matter. Except when it does. Of the 14 elections since 1972 (yes, this venerated tradition is only 44 years old) without an incumbent, the ultimate candidate has only won 8 times and only three of those eventually became President. It is small, overwhelmingly white and rural. Evangelical Christians have massive, outsized sway. Worst of all it continues the nation's dependence and painful addiction to corn. If you want a future in national politics you can never vote against ethanol or corn syrup subsidies.
New Hampshire doesn't matter. Except when it does. New Hampshire has only predicted the correct candidate 8 out of 14 times since 1972, only 4 of which eventually became President. It is small, overwhelmingly white and rural. Libertarians have massive, outsized sway.
Following those two we get South Carolina. It is also small, deeply evangelical, extremely white (but slightly less than the first two...thanks African Americans). Then, there is Nevada, small, deeply libertarian and extremely white (but slightly less than the first two...thanks Hispanics). Are you sensing a theme here?
So, we have geographic balance with a Midwest, New England, Southern and Mountain-West state (sorry West Coast or Mid-Atlantic states). We have states with deep Evangelical and Libertarian traditions (sorry secularists and Progressives). We have states that are predominantly white (sorry minorities). By the time those four, fairly unrepresentative, states, are settled the race usually is as well. Before most people even have a chance to register their support in anything other than
New Hampshire and Iowa do take their roles seriously in vetting candidates and being small allows for the retail politics that give charismatic insurgent/non-establishment candidates a chance to get noticed. Two elections in a row in Iowa on the Democratic side we have seen a, purportedly-liberal, outsider candidate swell to surprising support over the inevitable Clinton machine (more on Third Way, Clintonian politics to come at some point). On the Republican side we've seen Gov. Mike Huckabee and clown-troll Donald Trump race to victory over establishment favorites. In New Hampshire we've seen popular politicians from neighboring states (Sanders and Romney) and establishment favorites (Clinton '08 and Romeny) win....oh and rain-soaked-basketball Donald Trump won (but with moderate, Rockafeller Republican John Kasich doing very well as a rally round candidate).
So, the system works? We get insurgent and Quixotic candidates garnering enough attention to, in theory, get enough delegates and attention for their pet issues to affect the party platform and keep the ultimate winner honest. Establishment candidates get a chance to hone their message, get their ground game in order (or not.... Sec. Clinton) and hopefully not take too many hits from the wings of their parties.
The bigger problem isn't so much with the process as it is with the media circus and the horse-race coverage we get from them. That however, is a story for another day
Monday, February 1, 2016
Introductory Endorsement: Part Two
While this space will generally take a left-center (in the grand scheme) editorial position, we are not blinded ideologically to an honest and effective voice on the right. That being said, the Grand Old Party has fallen so far from that moniker as to be ultimately dangerous to the Republic. As such, we shall review the Republican field as well
JEB! The charmless scion who should have been President instead of his brother, has failed so thoroughly as a retail politician and seems to be running only to fulfill his familial duty and engage in the cyclical attempt to restore the Bush name. He has no constituency within his own party, except monied interests.
Sen. Ted Cruz is unqualified for the Presidency, not because of where he was born, but rather because he is personally odious, violently dishonest, and nakedly ambitious.
Gov. Chris Christie practices a brand of politics we are loathe to see continue in America. His corruption and vengeful nature render him unfit.
Carly Fiorina can't stop lying about her record (largely because it abysmal) and has staked her claim to that ridiculous Planned Parenthood video, which has now been so thoroughly debunked as to get the creators indicted. Nevertheless, she continues her audition for the Hillary Clinton attack dog VP choice.
Dr. Ben Carson is a less entertaining, coherent and charming Herman Cain.
Sen Rand Paul presents many interesting ideas that separate him from the pack. His tepid support for the end of the drug war and a much more limited foreign policy are appealing. But his spotty record on civil rights for gays and minorities, opposition to abortion rights (despite claiming to be libertarian) and tax policy are all problematic.
Gov. John Kasich, particularly in his embrace of Gay rights, health care and moderate economic policy stands as the least bad choice. But his lack of traction and appeal among any segment of the Republican party makes him a long shot, and is more likely running as a moderate VP choice that could bring Ohio with him.
Sen. Marco Rubio is intriguing. Though he has stood up to his party's orthodoxy on immigration his inexperience and seemingly poor personal finance decisions
Donald J. Trump the buffoonish plutocrat is the elephant in the room. At first, like everyone else, we imagined he would be a flash in the pan. The man is a dishonest populist at best and a self-aggrandizing idiot at worst. He claims to be a successful businessman, yet a study of his income shows that had he simply invested the money left him by his father in a market fund, he would have a $7 Billion larger fortune.
So, who do we endorse? Given the unappealing options, we must go with a man who has only floated a trial balloon, but has dipped his toe in the water several times. Michael Bloomberg. Mayor Bloomberg is an actually successful businessman, has been an efficient mayor of NY. He has no foreign policy experience, but seems smart enough to make up for that. He is socially moderate and, though he would most likely siphon votes from the Democratic nominee, I would not be opposed to his entry into the race
JEB! The charmless scion who should have been President instead of his brother, has failed so thoroughly as a retail politician and seems to be running only to fulfill his familial duty and engage in the cyclical attempt to restore the Bush name. He has no constituency within his own party, except monied interests.
Sen. Ted Cruz is unqualified for the Presidency, not because of where he was born, but rather because he is personally odious, violently dishonest, and nakedly ambitious.
Gov. Chris Christie practices a brand of politics we are loathe to see continue in America. His corruption and vengeful nature render him unfit.
Carly Fiorina can't stop lying about her record (largely because it abysmal) and has staked her claim to that ridiculous Planned Parenthood video, which has now been so thoroughly debunked as to get the creators indicted. Nevertheless, she continues her audition for the Hillary Clinton attack dog VP choice.
Dr. Ben Carson is a less entertaining, coherent and charming Herman Cain.
Sen Rand Paul presents many interesting ideas that separate him from the pack. His tepid support for the end of the drug war and a much more limited foreign policy are appealing. But his spotty record on civil rights for gays and minorities, opposition to abortion rights (despite claiming to be libertarian) and tax policy are all problematic.
Gov. John Kasich, particularly in his embrace of Gay rights, health care and moderate economic policy stands as the least bad choice. But his lack of traction and appeal among any segment of the Republican party makes him a long shot, and is more likely running as a moderate VP choice that could bring Ohio with him.
Sen. Marco Rubio is intriguing. Though he has stood up to his party's orthodoxy on immigration his inexperience and seemingly poor personal finance decisions
Donald J. Trump the buffoonish plutocrat is the elephant in the room. At first, like everyone else, we imagined he would be a flash in the pan. The man is a dishonest populist at best and a self-aggrandizing idiot at worst. He claims to be a successful businessman, yet a study of his income shows that had he simply invested the money left him by his father in a market fund, he would have a $7 Billion larger fortune.
So, who do we endorse? Given the unappealing options, we must go with a man who has only floated a trial balloon, but has dipped his toe in the water several times. Michael Bloomberg. Mayor Bloomberg is an actually successful businessman, has been an efficient mayor of NY. He has no foreign policy experience, but seems smart enough to make up for that. He is socially moderate and, though he would most likely siphon votes from the Democratic nominee, I would not be opposed to his entry into the race
Introductory Endorsement: Part One
It's somewhat unusual for a blog, or any form of media purporting to be a somewhat neutral arbiter, to begin it's run with a political endorsement. Yet, to ignore the most important issue of the day on which we launch would be dishonest. So, it is our hope to make our bid for your opinion and earn your trust along the rest of the way.
It is clear that Hillary Clinton is, by far, the most competent, though among least exciting candidates in either field. Our problem with Sen. Clinton is partly ideological, partly personality. Her husband, sensing the rightward drift of the Republican party and recognizing the need for corporate money in order to compete, began a push to the center, which has alienated the base of the FDR-JFK-LBJ base of the party. It is therefore very difficult for her to lay claim to that progressive mantle. She is slightly more centrist than President Obama, who himself would have been considered a centrist 30 years ago, but who know finds himself a radical among the fever dreams of the right. However, as we can see from the Clinton and Obama administrations, attempts at compromise garner no good will, and instead only serve to make Republicans more inclined to extremism. Any Democrat elected will be viewed as illegitimate and subject to virulent conspiracy theories and obstinate opposition from the Republican field.
So, we should expect nothing but a fight, so why not pick the best fighter. With this in mind, we support Bernie Sanders for President in Iowa and New Hampshire. We are long time supporters of Sen. Sanders as one of the few honest, and consistent voices for progressive-left politics. The courage to claim to be a socialist in American politics (despite the ignorance of what that actually means among the general populace) is notable and his irascible nature indicates a man who will never back down from a fight. If you believe, as we do, that the country has drifted too far to the right, and the only way to effectively shock the system back into place is sustained progressive governance, he is the man for the job.
We do acknowledge, that the very things that draw us to Sen. Sanders are the things that we recognize would make him a less effective President overall. His relative inexperience with foreign affairs is concerning (though, no more so than President Obama's on his inauguration). However, from this position, we have been burned by seemingly progressive people who have acted as moderates once being elected. Sen. Sanders will certainly not have that problem.
While we still believe that Sen. Clinton will ultimately win the nomination and be an effective President. We must, in good conscience, stand behind Sen. Sanders as long as he stands up for us.
It is clear that Hillary Clinton is, by far, the most competent, though among least exciting candidates in either field. Our problem with Sen. Clinton is partly ideological, partly personality. Her husband, sensing the rightward drift of the Republican party and recognizing the need for corporate money in order to compete, began a push to the center, which has alienated the base of the FDR-JFK-LBJ base of the party. It is therefore very difficult for her to lay claim to that progressive mantle. She is slightly more centrist than President Obama, who himself would have been considered a centrist 30 years ago, but who know finds himself a radical among the fever dreams of the right. However, as we can see from the Clinton and Obama administrations, attempts at compromise garner no good will, and instead only serve to make Republicans more inclined to extremism. Any Democrat elected will be viewed as illegitimate and subject to virulent conspiracy theories and obstinate opposition from the Republican field.
So, we should expect nothing but a fight, so why not pick the best fighter. With this in mind, we support Bernie Sanders for President in Iowa and New Hampshire. We are long time supporters of Sen. Sanders as one of the few honest, and consistent voices for progressive-left politics. The courage to claim to be a socialist in American politics (despite the ignorance of what that actually means among the general populace) is notable and his irascible nature indicates a man who will never back down from a fight. If you believe, as we do, that the country has drifted too far to the right, and the only way to effectively shock the system back into place is sustained progressive governance, he is the man for the job.
We do acknowledge, that the very things that draw us to Sen. Sanders are the things that we recognize would make him a less effective President overall. His relative inexperience with foreign affairs is concerning (though, no more so than President Obama's on his inauguration). However, from this position, we have been burned by seemingly progressive people who have acted as moderates once being elected. Sen. Sanders will certainly not have that problem.
While we still believe that Sen. Clinton will ultimately win the nomination and be an effective President. We must, in good conscience, stand behind Sen. Sanders as long as he stands up for us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)