OnPrincipleBlog

It’s official, Team Clinton has officially committed to continuing the fight of the Democratic nomination.

It seems (and indeed, may in fact be) delusional, but the Clinton campaign’s current path to victory includes:

• Remaining Pledged Delegates:

  The immediate goal of the Clinton campaign is to keep Obama from winning too many of the Pledged Delegates available through the last two primaries this week. Of course, even if Obama wins ALL the remaining Pledged Delegates, which he won’t, he still wouldn’t posses enough Delegates to clinch the nomination. But sanity ranks the effectiveness of this first tactic in keeping the nomination from Obama on about the same plane as the boy-gets-girl ending of every “Nerd” move produced through Hollywood.  It’s fun to imagine improbabilities via a movie, but sad to witness the futility of misplaced hope in real life.

• Remaining 200 undeclared Super Delegates:

  A cursory review of news sources would probably lead one to believe that still undeclared Super Delegates are flocking, en mass, to the inevitability of Obama’s nomination. It is certainly true that Obama is inching ahead of Hillary, but it hasn’t exactly been a daily avalanche of declared support for Obama. I’ve previously noted the mere fact that these Super Delegates aren’t drawn to Obama like flies to messianic honey may be due to their secret, unrequited hope and preference for Hillary’s nomination.

  It should be noted that Obama is rumored to have accumulated an impressive reservoir of private “declarations” of support from a number of these publicly undeclared Super D’s which his campaign is holding back from public acknowledgement until the opportune moment. I believe this is true, but he doesn’t have 200 such Super D’s.

  I think it is fascinating to realize there is really no reason, at this point, for 90% of these undeclared Super D’s not to declare. If they don’t declare by Wednesday of this week (within 1 day of the final primaries), then we know the Clinton campaign may actually know something we don’t (even more “Pastor Disasters”, as is rumored?). They won’t make up the Delegate gap, but perhaps they will hold on to 25% - 50% of these undeclared Delegates.

• Enticing Declared Super D’s to Switch Allegiance:

  Vying for two above-mentioned categories of Delegates may breathe some temporary life into Clinton’s campaign, but it won’t secure her the nomination. Without further tactical advance by Team Clinton, it is overwhelmingly likely that Obama will still eke out support from sufficient remaining Delegates to secure the nomination. This is what leads us to examine Clinton’s last, best hope to becoming the Democratic nominee.

  The last key to the Clinton strategy is to convince existing Super D’s to switch allegiance. As I wrote about here, this is, technically speaking, a completely viable option for a Super Delegate. For the sake of convenience, media organizations like the Associated Press and CNN keep track of declarations of support from Super Delegates as a way of handicapping the nomination process. But Super D’s are NOT bound to these declarations. They don’t cast their vote of support until August. Until then, they are free to publicly vacillate in support of the candidates or even remain undeclared. Hillary’s campaign hopes are completely banked upon convincing these Super D’s to switch allegiance.

  How likely is this tactic to work? Again, as I depict here, the Super D’s are pinned to the mat of reality by a monolithic media meme in Obama’s inevitable victory. The sheer repetition of his assumed nomination creates an incredible inertia of presumed public opinion against which most elected officials just won’t fight – even if they know he is the weaker candidate for the party. Thus the reason I classify this final tactic as a delusional jousting at windmills. Yet, Hillary is wisely campaigning with just such a Super Delegate this week:

  “Clinton invited Virgin Islands Super Delegate Kevin Rodriguez, a recent convert, to travel with her to South Dakota where she planned to campaign Monday. Rodriguez had initially supported Clinton, switched to Obama, and recently returned to her camp.”

  Still, as Hillary inarticulately alluded last week, an awful lot can happen between now and the convention. Consider Obama’s plummeting ratings among white Democratic women and on the “trust” of voters in general. If the media meme can be broken, Super D’s may be convinced to switch.

  I think the media is now fully invested in an Obama victory over Clinton. But continuing revelations of impropriety, racism, dangerous inexperience or poor judgment – if persistent or sufficiently shocking – may create the crack in Obama’s reservoir of Super D declarations to create a new flood of support which changes the tide of this election and buoys her drowning candidacy (to truly stretch a metaphor).

  Delusional? Perhaps.

  Technically true? Absolutely.

  Likely? Time will tell. . .

On Principle,

CBass

Like many self-proclaimed conservatives I know, the grating, wily “Queen of Tusla” is actually warming the icy layers of my libertarian heart. There are lots of things to admire in her tenacity, but the Terminator is tenacious too. But the reason I find myself in stunned admiration is that she is actually striking the profession, principled position in terms of navigating the DNC process governing the Navigation.

I reach this conclusion through my intercept of a dialogue between a representatives of Hillary’s campaign (a “Hillarite”) and a concerned Super Delegate (”Super D”).

Super D: Cut the BS, why is Hillary still in this race?

Hillarite: No one has won enough Delegate votes to win the nomination and she’s kicking Obama’s backside by unprecedented margins. Who quits a race when they are winning states by 35% and 41%? More importantly, Hillary is FAR more electable in November.

Super D: But cut the BS. You know Hillary CAN’T win

Hillarite: Why not?

Super D: She’s 200 Delegates down and there aren’t enough Pledged Delegates left to win. Obama only needs a handful more.

Hillarite: Not true. Obama only needs a handful more until Michigan and Florida are seated, because the current counts of what constitutes the “majority” of Delegates doesn’t include these two states. That issue is getting addressed this weekend, so we’ll all know what is happening soon enough. But everyone expects MI and FL to have some of their Delegates seated at the Dem National Convention. When that happens Obama will actually need more Delegates than what he’s likely to win in the 3 remaining contests. Thus, when all the popular voting is completed, neither of us will have won enough Delegates.

On Michigan and Florida:

Super D: Cut the BS. All this pushing on MI and FL is a bit unseemly. You agreed that those states shouldn’t be counted. You agreed not to campaign in them.

Hillarite: Yes, we did agree. Yes, we did obey the rules and did not campaign in either state. But, we also stated publically that neither state should be cut out of our process. They both held legal votes. In fact, all names were on the ballot in FL and the FL Secretary of State has officially confirmed the popular vote there. Are you saying a fair, legal election shouldn’t be counted?

Super D: Well, ok. Maybe FL. But Obama wasn’t even on the ballot in MI. He obeyed the rules. Hillary did not.

Hillarite: Wrong. No DNC rule required candidates to remove their names from the ballot. Obama jumped the gun and limited his options by removing his name. Hillary showed more political judgment by leaving her options open. No one has filed an accusation that she broke ANY rules. In fact, watching how the two campaigns handled this issue provides another excellent insight as to why Obama won’t make a good national leader.

On Obama as Frontrunner:

Super D: OK, I’ll grant you MI and FL, but we Super D’s HAVE to vote for him.

Hillarite: Why?

Super D: Cut the BS. Obama has won more states.

Hillarite: Number of states won is not a criterion for success under ANY measurement system. North Dakota is just not that important.

Super D: Cut the BS. Obama has won more popular votes. The voice of the voters must be heard.

Hillarite: No he hasn’t. Hillary has won the popular vote if MI and FL are added. As we already discussed, there is really no argument that FL shouldn’t be added and it isn’t Hillary’s fault that Obama mistakenly removed his name from the MI ballot. Besides, forecasts of the remaining contests show that Hillary will further increase her popular vote lead. It is very, very likely that Obama will NOT have won the majority of the popular vote when everything’s done.

Super D: Ok, but cut the BS. Delegates are what matter and Obama is WAY ahead in Delegates.

Hillarite: Yes, Obama is ahead in Pledged Delegate count, but we don’t know that he will be ahead once Super Delegates cast their votes in August.

On the Popular Will:

Super D: Cut the BS. Super D’s are mostly elected officials. They have to vote according to the will of their constituents.

Hillarite: Wrong on 2 counts. First, if this were true, why are Senators Kennedy and Kerry supporting Obama? Hillary soundly won Massachusetts. If what you are saying is true they MUST support me. Second, if what you state was true, why would we even have a Super Delegate system? The ENTIRE purpose of having Super Delegates is to allow consideration beyond the foundational proportional distribution of Pledged Delegates.

Super D: Ok. I’ll grant you this in concept. But come on. Cut the BS. Super Delegates must follow the popular will.

Hillarite: What popular will? Hillary has won, is winning and will win the popular vote! The only “popular will” Obama is winning is the will of the Media. Are you suggesting the Media should select our candidate? Not the voters? And not other considerations?

Super D: There you go again, mentioning “other considerations”. What “other considerations” would justify overturning a major lead in Delegates?

Hillarite: What “major lead”. If you remove the Super Delegates, wait for the MI and FL decision and forecast the final 3 primaries – then Obama is still ahead in Pledged Delegates, but not by more than 2 or 3%. At that point, Hillary may be ahead by 2 or 3% in the popular vote.

Super D: Cut the BS. You know Super D’s have already stated their support for Obama. So you can’t just separate them when you look at Obama’s Delegate total.

Hillarite: There are several more months until the Convention. No Super Delegate votes until then. Until the Convention, they are free to change their mind. After all, there are several Super D’s who changed their stated support from me to Obama. Why isn’t it ok for Super D’s to switch their votes from Obama to me?

On “Other Considerations”:

Super D: Ok, but you haven’t answered, what “other considerations” would justify such a switch.

Hillarite: I’ll tell you, but first, please remember, there isn’t some MAJOR justification needed for a Super D to support someone who is winning the popular vote. Now, that being said, this cycle is compressed to an unprecedented degree. We’ve never seen this before and will be studying it when all is done to learn from mistakes made. Voters may already be doing this. Consider, since March 4^th, Hillary has massively won the popular vote and in Pledged Delegates. So, the longer voters have to think, study and assess their options, the more they vote for Hillary. We even saw this in early primary states. Late deciders nearly always broke for Hillary by a huge percentage.

Super D: Is that all? Hillary’s done a better job of campaigning, finally, so she’s performing better. That’s your argument? Vote for Hillary because she finally fixed her campaign?

Hillarite: No, there’s much more. Hillary is winning all the states Democrats must win in November. She is polling ahead of McCain while Obama polls behind or even with him. And she has the larger, more stable coalition of supporters. Obama’s is very narrow in terms of the general election. If it wasn’t for Hillary’s admitted mistake not to contest the primaries in a few small states (most of which McCain is guaranteed to win anyway), she would be even or ahead in Pledged Delegates as well.

Super D: Interesting. But cut the BS. Super D’s can’t go against the will of the people. . .

Hillarite: Have you listened to anything here? The ENTIRE purpose of Super D’s is to make decisions on the larger parameters of what will help the Dem Party win in the General Election. The ENTIRE purpose. Hillary is the best candidate on all of these parameters. Obama’s Delegate lead only seems large because of Super D’s which could change their votes. Hillary is ahead in popular votes by about the same margin as Obama is ahead in Pledged Delegates – Delegates from states which won’t decide the election.

Super D: Interesting argument, but cut the BS. Obama is black. This is historic. We Super D’s can’t deny such a historic moment.

Hillarite: So, the first female President isn’t historic? Being “Black” is more important than being “Female”?

Super D: Well, the media would crush us if we Super D’s reversed the popular will and voted for Hillary.

Hillarite: WHAT POPULAR WILL?????? Hillary will win the popular vote. Arghhh! Cut the BS. As an elected official, you are going to “lead” according to the media’s vote. Doesn’t that make the media unelected “Supder Delegates” of the Dem Party?

Thus, the feckless Dem’s will nominate Obama because the media won’t “let” them do otherwise. Mainstream Corporate Media - the real Supder Delegates. . . Welcome to the Democrat’s version of democracy.

On Principle,

CBass

I’m still a bit confused and baffled as to the all-consuming narrative that the Clinton campaign is caput. I may post some original thoughts in the next several days about the numerous reasons I see for her rational decision to remain in the race (and I’m someone who now believes Obama is the Republican’s best opportunity for victory). But in this post, I want to question the assumption I’m hearing often repeated that Democratic Super Delegates are nearly unanimous in their push to have Hillary withdraw from the race out of fear that she is damaging the party. In fact, I think the exact opposite is really the case.

As I’ll show below, the only two conclusions that make sense to me are that:

1. The majority of Super Delegates actually fear that Obama will result in a Democratic defeat in the November.

   And / Or

2. The majority of Super Delegates actually support Hillary and are awaiting an opportunity to proclaim it.

1. Prior to PA
   

   If Super Delegates in any large measure were set against Hillary and feared her impact upon the race, they could have confidently come out in support of Obama following the Ohio and Texas primaries – where Hillary, despite convincing wins in two large states gained only a handful of Delegates against Obama. The mathematics of pledged Delegates was clear at that point (2 months ago!). It would have been a simple matter for more Super Delegates to throw their public support behind Obama with a simple reference to party rules and Delegate counts. In so doing, the Super Delegates could have negated the extra 6 weeks of “negative” campaigning leading into the PA primary – if they actually supported Obama, that is.

   Once again, after PA, Hillary’s sizable win didn’t make much of a dent in Obama’s Delegate lead. Thus, if Super Delegates were enthusiastic about Obama, they again could have started publically stating their support for him following PA. At that point, it was even more obvious that Hillary wasn’t going to win the Pledge Delegate count.

   So, noting the near certainty of Obama’s unassailable lead in Pledged Delegates some 2 months ago, and faced with the certain knowledge of Hillary’s need to “go negative”, why would the Super Delegates sit by quietly?

2. Popular Vote
   

   When I reference the fact that Super Delegates could have thrown their support behind Obama 2 months ago if they truly were enthused for him, I’m NOT stating that all the remaining several hundred would have needed to do so. No indeed. If only 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 Super Delegates came out publically in his camp following TX and OH, the media coverage of such an “avalanche” of support would have arrested attention lavished upon Hillary’s triumph and shown her continued candidacy to be a complete farce and fantasy.

   “But wait”, you may say, “Super Delegates are largely elected officials. They are afraid to make public pronouncements until they can see the direction of public sentiment. And such certainty would be available until after more Primary votes.” This sounds reasonable, but it isn’t.

   Many of the Super Delegates represent constituencies which had already long ago voted in earlier Primaries. If they enthusiastically supported Obama, they could have easily come out in public support of his campaign with the simple statement that they are simply honoring the popular vote of their constituents.

   Heath Shuler today announced his Super Delegate vote for Hillary Clinton, despite the fact that his state, North Carolina, favored Obama by some 14% points. He can do this, because his district was won by Clinton.

   How many undeclared Super Delegates who support Obama represent districts and states which have already held Primaries? If they enthusiastically supported Obama, is it possible that there are at least 10, 20, 40 or 50 such Super Delegates? I’m willing to bet. Then why wouldn’t they publically proclaim their support, secure in their alignment with their districts, and save their party from 2 additional months of controversy and negativity?

3. Pledges Are NOT Permanent
   

   It may be argued that Super Delegates, as elected officials, are notoriously careful to cover themselves. Thus, there is no reason for them to publically proclaim their support until the Primaries are completed and the vote totals are obvious. This is nonsense.
   

• As I point about above, many of these Super Delegates already know the vote of their constituents. If they were enthused about Obama, they could confidently support him.

• The party’s Congressional leadership have pretty much already publically proclaimed their support for Obama. Thus adding further cover for these Super Delegates.

Further, I suggest one further cover is available for wise Super Delegates. Instead of publically stating their “Pledge”, they could have come out with their “Intention” to support. Why couldn’t Super Delegates who secretly support Obama simply state, “Based upon the clear expression of my constituents and the overwhelming lead in Pledged Delegates held by Senator Obama, I am currently intending to (or leaning toward) support his nomination, though I’m still supportive of the entire process playing out to ensure we select the best nominee for our great party”?

Such a statement wouldn’t even need to be made directly. Every Super Delegate is deluged by interest in the leaning of their vote. They could make such a statement in a simple, off-the-cuff sort of manner in some public forum.

And notice the terminology. They aren’t “Pledging”. They aren’t making an official announcement. They are simply indicating a direction in which they may lean at the present moment – but are still open to change. This simple maneuver would provide all the cover they need to later change their minds if necessary.

All Obama needed was a small team of 10, 20 or 30 supportive Super Delegates to make such public statements in the 2 – 3 days following the TX and OH primaries. Surely his campaign is savvy enough to identify and know how to entice such a small cadre of supporters into making such statements in groups of 5 or 10 each day. This small show of support, for someone who is truly already enthused for Obama would have put enormous pressure on Hillary, would have changed the media coverage going into PA, would have provided a template for other secrete Super supporters and would have probably saved the party another 2 months of negative vetting of Obama.

When I examine the above logic, I can only assume 2 things:

1. There are certainly Super Delegates who support Obama from completed Primary states. If they haven’t made such a simple and tentative pronouncement of support they are either even more spineless than I imagine or they are holding out for patronage from the eventual winner – which means they don’t truly support Obama enthusiastically.

2. The bulk of Super Delegates believe Hillary’s message that Obama is the least electable in the General Election of the two candidates. They have been waiting and hoping for the past 2 months that Hillary can generate enough momentum and support to allow them to make a similar, tentative statement in her favor – to eventually cause a tipping point. But with the dismal results of Indianan and North Carolina, these Super Delegates are just super disappointed.

On Principle,

CBass

There are signs that the pandemic which is the “Bush Derangement Syndrome” (BDS) is starting to subside.

What is BDS?

BDS is that pervasive contagion which subversively and subtly causes one’s perception of all events in life to be negatively interpreted and then be linked back to President Bush. BDS is the reason why Bush can both be a stumbling dunce AND the current evil mastermind behind the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. BDS is how Bush can simultaneously be an inhumane, war mongering drunkard and a radical born again Christian who insanely feels personally called by God to the Office of the Presidency. BDS is why Bush is obviously the original, prime and personal point of causation for Global Warming, Hurricane Katrina and bridge collapses.

Is BDS Subsiding?

A recent poll reports some perspective may be returning to the populace:

• About 64 percent of likely voters approve of Bush’s economic stimulus package passed earlier this year;
• 67 percent back his initiatives to help struggling home owners survive the current mortgage crisis
• 70 percent endorse his plan to allow monitoring of foreign communications of suspected terrorists
• 72 percent back his visit to the Mideast to promote peace. In addition, 52 percent approve of his surge of U.S. troops into Iraq.

If you are like me, you may not wholeheartedly support these specific initiatives, but it is encouraging to see folks finally being willing to attribute something positive to the President. If BDS antibodies continue to fight back this infection, perhaps the body politic will finally take a second looks at:

• An economic record which, despite the current unpleasantness, featured record growth in jobs, home ownership, minority income advancement, stock market levels, involvement in the stock market and GDP growth.

• A foreign policy record which features huge increases in international aid, the dismantling of an international nuclear weapons black market, the clearing of chemical weapons from Libya, alignment with Eastern Europe, the birth of Democracy in numerous nations and the building of alliances in the emerging Pacific super-market.

• A return of decorum and respect to the White House.

On Principle,

CBass

Well, this year’s primary process has taken yet another turn in presumed direction – this time in favor of team Clinton. I must state that I wasn’t surprised by last night’s results, but that doesn’t make the current state of the Democratic race any less fascinating to behold.

It seems to me that neither candidate is really THAT close to clenching the nomination in terms of pledged delegates and due to the Dem’s method of delegate distribution, I don’t foresee this changing. Thus, at this point in time, it certainly seems as though the eventual winner will become the winner due to extra delegates from 1 of 2 sources:

1. John Edwards: He holds only 26 Delegates, but as the race tightens, those 26 may make all the difference in the fight for Super Delegate votes. Who offers him the best perk is likely to get his support. Clinton is in a better, and more desperate, position to offer VP as a trump to Obama’s likely Attorney Generalship.

2. Super Delegates: This monstrous invention of the Democratic party invites party insiders to make leviathanic backroom deals. While Obama currently lays claim to popular and delegate vote leads, Clinton can stake a convincing claim that her victories are the ones which will matter most in the General Election – the entire purpose for this primary process. And when all else fails, Bill Clinton has 4-5 months to raise the funds necessary to buy Super Delegate support.

3. Unseated Delegates: How this sticky issue is decided may make or break the Clinton candidacy. She stands on solid ground arguing that she honored all DNC rules while also honoring all Democratic voters and that she and the voters should not be further penalized by having January votes disenfranchised. Her compromise solution may be to follow the GOP and allow only half the delegates to be seated. This honors DNC rules, honors voters and allows her to pull closer to Obama – while claiming any Super Delegates representing these two states.

John Edwards:

The nearly forgotten spoiler in this race is John Edwards. The trial lawyer turned populist rhetoritician has not yet revealed to which candidate he will encourage his 26 pledged delegates to favor. There is no rule that I know of stating these delegates must act in accordance with his eventually stated wishes, but since this is an unknowable black box and since delegates tend toward following the expressed wishes of the candidate to whom they are pledged, let’s assume the vast bulk of them become pledged to which ever candidate he chooses. This could be the game winning boon needed by both candidates. With whom will Edwards side? It’s anyone’s guess. Both candidates have pilgrimaged to his humble home of class conscience to make obeisance at his altar of hair flare.

I predict that if the race becomes tighter, the stakes of courtship become higher. Edwards will eventually throw in his lot with the candidate who offers him the biggest and best sacrifice. Obama can’t afford to entice Edwards with the VP slot as the preening former Senator from NC has nearly as little experience as does candidate Obama – leaving the the weakest flank completely open to GOP attack. I predict this leaves Obama with the somewhat spotted calf of Attorney General.

Clinton, on the other hand, has nothing to lose by offering Edwards the coveted VP position. He’s a Dem populist to her Washington insider experience. If she were the front runner, I would predict she would merge her strength (convincingly demonstrated last night) with that of Gov. Strickland and turn Ohio into the MAJOR battleground of the general election. But, since she must win the nomination to play in the general, I postulate that Edwards and his precious 26 delegates are needed more. Indeed, Hillary has already demonstrated her strength in Ohio and she isn’t likely to lose the support of Strickland – there are many more perks a confirmed nominee Clinton can confer upon a supportive Governor if successfully elected.

Who knows, Obama may take the general election poison pill and extend the VPship to Edwards as a last ditch effort (though unlikely as the 26 delegates are less important to him). Perhaps Edwards really just can’t stand the Clintons and will act as a spoiler. Perhaps Edwards calculates an AGship in the hand is better than a VPship in the bush. Perhaps an infinite myriad of contrary passions lead Edwards in any number of directions. . .

But when left with only speculation, I count on reasoned judgment and position envy. Clinton may offer VP and Edwards will jump to accept. Plus, she’s a Clinton; she doesn’t have to actually follow through if doing so becomes inconvenient.

Supper Delegates:

Surely there is no one left in this country who doesn’t know about the Dem’s Super Delegates. These individuals, anointed by position and prestige, have been conferred power by the party to cast votes for the nominee unhindered by the electorate, unaccountable to the electorate and unlike the electorate – without the confusion of ignorance. Yes, the Dem’s are truly the part which empowers the “forgotten man”.

Current conventional wisdom states that the Super Delegates will not cast votes counter to the will of the people and will reinforce Barrack’s lead in the popular vote. This is certainly possible, but I believe Clinton has a compelling case to make to these party insiders:

1. The Electoral College: While Barrack has won more states and has won a better apportionment of delegates, Hillary has won the largest states. If the Dem nomination were a winner takes all race, akin to the general election’s Electoral College, she would be leading in the Delegate count. Since the General Election is what the entire nomination is about, she has actually demonstrated more strength in states important to the General Election. Thus important to the party being protected by the Super Delegates.

2. The Winning Base: Extending this argument, Clinton can also point out that Barrack’s wins are largely in states that will be solidly “red” in 2008. His strength may put the GOP candidate on the ropes defensively, but no matter how strong he is nominee Barrack would not be likely to ultimately win in these states. Clinton, by contrast, is winning the states which the Dem’s MUST hold in 2008 (Michigan, New York, California). In a tight election, a party wants the candidate who has the deepest, most solid in-roads with the base. This is especially important as the candidate must pivot in the general to proclaim a moderated message. Barrack excites more of the base, but not in the states the Dem’s must hold.
3. Swing States: This argument can convincingly be extended to the General Election’s swing states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, etc). Clinton beat Obama convincingly in OH and FL, both important swing states in 2008. While PA hasn’t voted yet, Clinton is polling well ahead there. If she wins PA and makes the arguments outlined here, I think she may be able to cinch a majority of the Super Delegates.
4. Bill Clinton – Fundraiser: If all else fails, Hillary has something many of the Super Delegates want, Bill Clinton is still a dominant figure in Democratic fundraising. Team Clinton has gotten Bill off the wreckage of the campaign trail. They should keep him entirely focused upon buying Super Delegate votes through fundraising. Barrack has outspent Hillary in political donations to these individuals by 4:1. Bill Clinton, provided 4 – 5 months of dedicated service can even these donation odds.

Unseated Delegates:

The arcane and somewhat bizarre rules of the Democratic National Committee decided to punish Democratic voters in two important swing states (Michigan and Florida). At present, these millions of voters won’t be represented when delegates select the candidate at the Dem convention. I, along with most of the political world, think this will change. The method of this remedy may determine the final selection of the nominee.

Hillary abided by the same rules as did the Obama camp, meaning she hasn’t been shown to have broken any rules. Yet, being a Clinton, she surely played the rulebook with much more cunning than did the great savior from Chicago. Her judicial audaciousness gave her two much needed infusions of “momentum” in January (which made last night’s wins possible) and resulted in her claim to a valuable and fairly large cache of Delegates.

Many in the party want both states to simply “re-vote”. In such a matchup, if held today, Barrack would likely do well in MI and Hillary would do well in FL. The near draw would probably result in a slight gaining of delegate ground by Clinton, but nothing large enough to secure her the clear nomination.

Team Clinton will angle to argue the following:

1. She didn’t break any rules, she simply honored the entirety of the Democratic electorate. Obama quickly wrote them off. Why should he be honored for this?

2. Obama actually did participate. In Michigan, his campaign and its surrogates actively encouraged voters to select “Uncommitted”. That he chose this negative strategy rather than Hillary’s positive strategy is not her fault, it’s his.

1. Clinton may opt to compromise with the GOP solution to the same problem. The GOP penalized states half of their delegates for holding primary contests “too early”. She could “compromise” that half the delegates be seated at convention. That would provide 105 FL delegates and 78 MI delegates. As “Uncommitted” received sizable votes, Clinton would not receive ALL the delegates, but she would probably receive around 85. Clinton could argue that based on the above two points, she played by the rules – as did the voters in those two states. Neither should be penalized by acting as if the votes cast in January somehow didn’t mean anything. And by halving the delegates, the DNC is still penalizing the states and her contested “advantage” against Obama is getting muted. It’s a pretty clever and convincing argument.

I suspect the outcome of this argument will be determined by how well Obama and Clinton court the Super Delegates. If Clinton is successful in that courtship, I think she may win this argument and lay claim to winning 2 more large and swing states – further bolstering her claims for Super Delegate support. If Obama does the better job courting, I would look for a rematch in both states. In a rematch, Obama both maintains his delegate lead and the very “solution” points toward a Clinton who isn’t winning Super Delegate votes as she must.

On Principle,

CBass

For most of the primary season, the action was between the seemingly infinite field of flawed GOP candidates. Like most commentators, I relished following, probing and predicting the turns in this race of limping Elephants (still powerful, just not perfect).

Well, my good friend Gene Brooks posted a comment on this blog some time back asking me to comment on the now much more exciting and ever malleable Democratic race. Let me firmly and clearly state at the outset – I am NOT an expert on how the Democratic base perceives candidates or issues. But I will provide how I see those candidates and issues.

1. Democratic Candidates:

   As I stated to a group of wonderful Republican activists in Phoenix the other week, “The Democratic Party is like a Pez dispenser of awful candidates. Hit them on the head every 4 years and out they spit some candy coated, weak and ineffectual representative.” I could easily retrace the litany of perfectly terrible Dem candidates for the past 30 years, but just consider this year’s offering: Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama

   Hillary Clinton:

   Mrs. Clinton has no major accomplishments to her name, no Executive experience of ANY kind (elected or private or even running a large charity), some of the highest negativity scores of any modern candidate, is uniquely impersonal and unattractive (in spirit, not in looks) and can’t say anything negative about her opponent without sounding like the stereotypically shrill ex-wife.

   Barrack Obama:

   Mr. Obama also has no major accomplishments (in either Senate or State Legislature), has no Executive experience of ANY kind (elected or private or even running a large charity), represents a black separatist church, is on record in writing, speeches, votes and debates as supporting some of the most radically liberal policies in modern politics and despite his overflowing charisma is completely at a stumbling lost when pressed to explain policy.

2. Demagoguery:

   I don’t know that the Dem’s will lose this race in 2008. In fact, most of the “smart money” is on them to win. I don’t buy this - - - yet - - - but do find a silver lining in this prediction. America could do a lot worse than demonstrate our willingness to elect a woman or black to the Presidency. As a conservative, I never doubted America would be so inclined if a decent candidate would step forward. Remember, it was the Republican party who supported a robust effort to push Colin Powell forward as our candidate a decade ago (not that he would have been a great conservative, but that’s another post).

   I fear for Judicial appointments, victory in the war on terror and for the stagnation of high taxation if the Dems win. At the same time, I can at least welcome, with absolutely open arms, the final nail in the coffin of identity politics. Yes boys and girls, while such is ALREADY the case, if one of these Dems wins, there can no longer be any arguments that certain classes and groups of people can’t succeed.

   But I do also love the wonderful insight America is finally getting into the Democratic party. The GOP, while not perfect, is not a party based on identity politics. The GOP takes positions on issues from a uniformly principled stance. You may disagree with the principles, but there is a logical and consistent approach from the Right. The Democrats, by contrast, are a party of identity politics. The majority of its support base, organizations, policies and rhetoric are based not upon unified principles, but upon segments of identity. There are black issues, Hispanic issues, women’s issues, low-wage workers issues, Hollywood issues, etc. Yes, there are other power centers – like anti-war and environmental groups, but the vast majority of their base is identity focused.

   This is wonderfully coming into focus due to the demagoguery of the Clintons. The entire primary fight has turned into a disgusting identification of women, Latinos, Blacks and whites – with the clear intention of playing one off the other. Even Clinton’s black supporters have taken to arguing that Obama isn’t “Black enough”. This is identity politics in its rawest form. I doubt most Blacks, Latinos or women who are inclined toward the Democrats will leave the party due to this ugly laying bare of the naked party underbelly. Too bad. But I rejoice in the fact that they at least have to acknowledge it – and eventually, perhaps this will lead them to change it.

   I think all “identities” are best served by the Conservative message of individual worth and capability, but minorities are certainly better served by a Democratic party which comes to terms with the perniciousness of identity politics and is working to move from that ignoble base to something that doesn’t cater to the lowest possible denominator of identity. Since the Dem’s will win power either now or in the future, such a move is good for them – and by extension, would be good for America.

3. Demi-gods:

   The other, obvious observation about the Democratic nomination is the role of the personality cult. And what we see being laid out is the same poetic judgement that befalls all people who allow themselves to be set on the thrones of demi-gods.

   Everyone reading this post, both of you, must remember the cult of personality which buoyed Bill Clinton to new levels of stardom. His crush of supporters even kept his performance ratings at relatively high levels in the midst of adultery, sleazy old man sex, obstruction of justice, perjury and sloppy ambition.

   Now these adoring legions have rallied to another prince charming. Barrack is enjoying unreasoning adoration and praise – he was applauded for publicly blowing his nose last week. That’s just a little gross.

   But worshipers can’t have two masters and demi-gods all demand sacrifice. In this cycle, the image of Bill Clinton the Untouchable Ruler of All Politics has been sacrificed at the altar of Obama the Wise and Gracious. History warns that such poetic judgment is not to be escaped.

   Jesus was welcomed into Jerusalem by waves of adoring pilgrims who loudly proclaimed his coronation. Three days later same emotional crowd was trading his life for that of a murderous rogue. Emotional swells dissipate. When they do, the weak thrown upon which the former demi-god sits is revealed as the hollow buttress it is. Emotion doesn’t last.

   I hope the swooning worshipers get this emotional burst out of their system before Nov. I can’t claim to know if they will. But I do know this outpouring won’t last forever. When the fever subsides and sanity briefly intrudes before the next demi-god, folks will ask, “What was it all about? Did one man really change the way Washington works? Are we safer, stronger and better as a people or did we just feel better for a while?”.

On Principle,
CBass

I’m returning home from Phoenix where I was honored to deliver a short speech to the Arizona Federation of Republican women.

Here are some summary notes we included in the conference packet for each attendee:

Why the GOP Can Retain the White House in 2008

Winning Factors:

1.The Primary Calendar: For the next 2 months, Huckabee’s campaign will provoke a civil debate over conservative principles and will maintain pressure on McCain to reach out toward conservative constituencies. In addition, thanks to Romney’s gracious suspension of his campaign, the GOP probably has 4 – 6 months to clarify, unify, organize and invest for victory ahead of the nominee of a hyper energized Democratic base.

Key: To leverage this advantage, the GOP MUST clarify our unmovable core principles, agree on topics still open to debate and emotionally unify behind our nominee – without wasting a day.

2.The Democratic Line-up: Election after election, the Democratic party kindly nominates critically flawed nominees. Neither Clinton or Obama should be underestimated, but BOTH are capable of being beaten.

Key: To leverage this advantage, the GOP MUST calmly and consistently contrast our nominee with both the Dem nominee.

3.Understanding Change: Every election is a triumph for the message of “change”. The key in this election, however, is to understand exactly what exact kinds of “change” are wanted. American’s overwhelmingly support conservative principles (lower taxes, family values, individual responsibility and security). Rasmussen polls for party identity demonstrate that the current administration is supported by about half of the nation’s Independents.

Key: To leverage this advantage, the nominee must remind the base of the critical issues at stake this year (national security, taxes and judges) and must positively motivate moderates – especially past Republicans.

4.It’s the Economy: Under the Bush economy, minority house ownership is at an all time record, job growth continued unabated for a record 52 months, the GDP grew faster than any other industrialized nation and unemployment has remained below the average for any of the past 3 decades. Additionally, the “Bush” tax cuts are set to expire in 2010 – making for an easy and precise measure of EXACLY how much a Dem President and Congress will cost individual voters.

Key: To leverage this advantage, the facts must be told in terms of timeless conservative principles, not as a continuation of Bush policies. For example, highlight the radical moves toward fiscal conservatism in Ireland, France, Eastern Europe, New Zealand, Australia and Japan.

5.The War on Terrorism: It’s hard to say which direction this war will ultimately go, but Iraq is clearly on the right military track, the Surge is drawing down and reconciliation laws are beginning to roll out of the Iraqi Parliament. Thus, the GOP candidate can probably point to positive signs in Iraq (if McCain, he can claim personal ownership for the policies which are bringing victory) and constantly focus on the real threats of China, Russia, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Pakistan, etc. If the electorate sees some success in Iraq and understands the threat from other quarters, the GOP should do well.

Key: To leverage this advantage, the GOP must call Americans to set priorities without playing the “fear” card. This can be done by speaking directly to these issues of international security and calling America toward a vision of moral excellence – in the model of Reagan.

Stumbling Blocks:

1.Immigration Reform: To govern, the GOP must win elections. Traditionally, the GOP wins elections on shared principles, not identity groups. Immigration is a uniquely difficult issue for the GOP as it is inextricably linked to a racial identity – Hispanics. A party can’t win elections without votes from voters and Hispanics are passing blacks as a voting bloc. Security must be first, but terms must be tight. If the GOP uses blanket terms (Immigrant, Hispanics, Illegals, etc), we will be quickly painted as racist. Then, cool-headed logic must guide our policy preferences moving forward.

3.Housing, Stock and Oil Turmoil: The economy is a great campaign platform for the GOP, but a still stagnant housing market, stock slumps and increasingly high oil prices, could rot this support. There is no magical inoculation against market volatility. The GOP must figure out how to trumpet financial conservatism without hanging its hat on every micro-indicator.

4.Health Care: The Dems will march with full force to the tune of Universal Healthcare. While the left-leaning media trumpets along with the handpicked results of selective polling. The facts and history are on the side of conservative principles, but this will be an uphill fight the entire way.

5.GOP Civil War: Reagan’s guiding principles was that anyone who is in 80% agreement with me is my ally. Beyond that, when the 80% of agreement is National Security, networking like-minded economies and cultures against nuclear equipped and well financed regimes and gaining 1 more vote on the Supreme Court.

On Principle,
CBass

Here’s one of the funniest blog posts I’ve read in weeks. I contains some great advice for McCain’s speech today at CPAC:

http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/02/frank_advice_for_mccain_at_cpa.php

Some highlights to prep your pallet:

* Call for a bombing run on Berkeley until they admit the military is awesome. Conservatives would like a nice local war. Plus, if in the end we decide to pull out of Berkeley and never go back, that’s cool too.

* Vow to create more global warming. See, here’s a great compromise. You believe in man made global warming, but that doesn’t mean you have to take a liberal position on it. Say warming is awesome and call for more of it. It will be an especially popular position this winter.

* State that Fred Thompson will be your VP and vow not to live long. That would be awesome. I bet it would get a standing ovation at CPAC.

I received the following Straw Poll Results from a leading party activist and friend in Arizona. Is this a foretaste of concern for McCain?

Maricopa Republicans Presidential Straw Poll Vote Results

Maricopa County Republicans conducted a Presidential Straw Poll during the Jan. 19 Maricopa County Republican Committee meeting in Tempe. In the first category the delegates were able to vote for only their first choice for president.

Those results were as follows. Presidential Straw Poll with 721 ballots cast:

188 Mitt Romney 26%

121 Fred Thompson 17%

115 Ron Paul 16%

93 Duncan Hunter 13%

80 John McCain 11%

33 Rudy Giuliani 9%

32 Mike Huckabee 9%

In the second voting category, the delegates were able to vote for more than one candidate as unacceptable. In the Unacceptable Category 427 out of 721 (59%) of the delegates declared McCain as one of their unacceptable candidates. The tallies were:

427 McCain

396 Paul

357 Giuliani

340 Huckabee

156 Hunter

152 Thompson

121 Romney

In the third category, the delegates were able to vote for more than one candidate as acceptable.

Those results were as follows:

370 Thompson

358 Hunter

356 Romney

235 Giuliani

207 Huckabee

135 McCain

120 Paul

Most of you reading this blog post will do so tomorrow morning via your various “feed” subscription services. Meaning, by the time you read this, the media will already be spinning their thoughts about tonight’s results.

Don’t be dazzled by all the rhetoric, reams of exit poll data, conflicting claims if victory and the sheer magnitude of election results. There are only a few states and a few points that matter:

Democrats:

The Democratic primaries and caucuses don’t use a winner takes all system. The methods by which they proportionally distribute delegates between candidates is unique to each state and beyond those of us who are not full-time professionals to understand. As a result, the news media will probably tend to focus on who won and who lost particular states, instead of detailing the quantity of delegates won by each candidates. Similarly, if the candidates count is close, keep searching until you find vote counts. In some states, equal quantities of delegates are awarded to candidates receiving 40% and 60% respectively. - yes, further complicating your lay analysis and further boggling the mind.

In summary:

1. Don’t fascinate over just about who won what states. Who got what quantity of delegates in each state? That’s what will determine the nomination.

2. If deleagate counts are close – then pay attention to actual vote totals in each state. Where does each candidate show strong support?

Republicans:

In the GOP race, only a few states really matter. Here they are:

Georgia:

Georgia is polling as a tight 3-way race. Why is Georgia important? What will it tell us?

1. Huckabee campaigned VERY hard here. In fact, Huckabee left Florida before the primary to hold rallys in GA when no one else was there. GA is a southern state in the Bible belt. It SHOULD be a win for Huckabee. Right now, he’s polling 3^rd. If he comes in 3^rd, it proves he just isn’t widely electable.

2. McCain just won the very public endorsement of GA’s Senators. GA is also a state heavily loaded with military populations. McCain hasn’t won a majority of Republicans in ANY state thus far, but he does very well in “open” primaries, where Independants can vote. GA is such a primary. With his endoresements, military support and Independent voters, McCain should win – he’s currently polling in first or tied for first (depending upon the poll). If he comes in 2^nd place, it will be a clear loss.

3. Romney has focused advertising dollars in GA, but hasn’t spent much time in the state. Although he has positioned himself as “the conservative choice”, conventional wisdom says Huckabee should take this portion of the vote. Half the GA population resides in the metro Atlanta area – which is booming economically. Thus, he doesn’t have a large pool of worried workers to leverage his business experience – as in Michigan. All told, Romney should come in 3^rd as he has been consistently polling VERY poorly in the South. His current polling is in 2^nd or tied for 1^st place. If Romney wins, it proves he is more widely electable than one may think. If he comes in 2^nd, it proves he can mobilize conservative voters after Super Tuesday should Huckabee then drop out – which is FAR from certain.

California:

I wanted to post thoughts on CA’s role in this race a few weeks back, but was not able to make time for it in light of my new business ventures. CA is of interest due to it’s HUGE delegate count AND due to it’s way of proportioning those delegates. Each congressional district will give 3 delegates to the popular vote winner.

1. McCain has gained endorsements from Rudy (who formerly polled well in CA) and the “Governator”. Simply put, he should win CA hands down. If he doesn’t it is a sign that he MUST turn toward the base (CA COP is educated and conservative) and assuage their concerns.

2. Romney won’t win many winner take all states – those are largely McCain’s to win (Mainly New England and AZ). Thus, while Romney polls closely to McCain in CA and can claim a moral victory, that won’t do much to increase his delegate count against McCain. I think Romney wisely invested in this state early. Look at the travel calendar posted on his website. He invested his time here just after his victory in the Ames Iowa straw poll. That early investment may produce his largest returns. . .

3. The story in CA will be the distribution of the popular vote vs. congressional districts. In terms of this analysis, think in terms of Gore’s popular vote victory of Bush in 2000 (no matter what you think of the outcome in FL) through huge concentrations of votes in urban areas and thus losing the Electoral College’s spread of votes across the heartland. I think CA could tell the same story. McCain may accumulate huge numbers popular votes in dense urban areas like LA and San Fran. Romney may well win smaller majorities in more Congressional districts. Thus, Romney could lose CA in terms of the Popular vote, but come out ahead by as many as 100 delegates in CA.

4. Also of interest to watch is the spin. CA results won’t be in by the time East Coast centered coverage closes down their telecasts. McCain will win more delegates earlier in the night. He will get the spin. If Romney wins the state in Popular vote or by a convincing Delegate lead (say 50 or more) then he may pick up spin the next day. If not, his surprisingly strong showing will likely be swept under the rug of the Clinton/Obama death match.

Massachusetts:

Conventional wisdom, polls and common sense all say that Romney should win convincingly here tonight.

1. McCain campaigned here over the weekend while Romney was pushing a sudden and impressive surge of support in CA. Tonight’s vote will show if McCain is crazy like a fox or just crazy like a man left marooned at see (think Tom Hanks and his buddy, “Wilson”).

2. If Romney doesn’t win convincingly here, it is hard to imagine a case for his continued support. This is his home state, he has mobilization networks and knows the politics. He was pretty popular as Governor and the primary is closed against Independents. If he loses, McCain is crazy like a prophet!

Arizona:

Much like I predicted CA would be a huge state in this race several weeks ago, I predict that AZ, starting Wednesday COULD change the dynamics in this race.

1. Simply put, many in the AZ GOP simply don’t like John McCain. They have lived with him as their Senator and he’s burned many bridges with much of the base. Just as he has “stuck his thumb” in the collective Conservative eye on some high profile issues in the past, I’m told that many GOP activists may take today/tonight to do the same back to McCain.

2. McCain boasted in the CNN/Politico debate held at the Reagan Presidential Library that he would not lose endorsement in his home state – unlike Romney in MA. That may be his set up. If McCain were to lose AZ, Romney will play that line against the vote total mercilessly. Plus, AZ is a winner takes all state with 53 delegates – a meaty sum.

3. I assume McCain will win AZ tonight, but if Romney comes in a close second, there is a real story to be told about McCain’s inability to please his base constituency – which will forecast real weakness in the General election.

4. There’s another items you analysts should look at: by what percentage spread does Romney win his home state vs. McCain win his? Since McCain campaigned in MA and Romney didn’t campaign in AZ, Romney should win by the lesser spread. If McCain is the one squeaking out a narrow victory – it should educate the Senator to change tactics and speak to the base.

On Principle,

CBass