Quick Links: Politics

by hilzoy

* Barack Obama won Mississippi. With 99% of precincts counted, he leads 60%-38%. As best I can tell, most of the outstanding precincts are in Obama-friendly areas.

* CNN has also called the Texas caucusses for Obama, and projects that he will get more delegates from Texas than Hillary Clinton.

* Marc Ambinder reports that "Democrats representing Florida in Congress" released this statement:

"We are committed to working with the DNC, the Florida State Democratic party, our Democratic leaders in Florida, and our two candidates to reach an expedited solution that ensures our 210 delegates are seated. Our House delegation is opposed to a mail-in campaign or any redo of any kind."

If we don't have a redo, I don't see how the Florida delegation can be seated. This is for two reasons: first, they ought to have a redo, with actual campaigning, organizing, and the like; and second, the whole reason this mess got started was that the Democratic party is trying to impose some sort of order on the primary system, so that everyone doesn't just rush to the first possible day. This cannot happen if they don't actually enforce their rules. I'd be happy with a redo of any kind, but just seating the delegates in the primary they held against the rules would wreck any hopes of having a remotely rational primary system next time, or even actually deciding, as a party, to just let everyone vote on the same day.

* Ezra Klein has the best comment on Geraldine Ferraro's idiotic comment that Obama is lucky to be black:

"Obama is not a woman, nor a white man. He's who he is. To say that if he were different, things would be different is to say nothing at all. As a white woman, maybe he would have led a military coup and established himself dictator. Who knows!? Hell, if he were a slightly less inspiring speaker, or had an off-night at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he wouldn't be in this position either. Similarly, if Hillary Clinton were a black man, it's unlikely that she would have been a national political figure for the past 15 years, as it's unlikely that she would have married another man from Arkansas, and unlikely that the country would have put an interracial, same sex couple in the White House. But so what? This is an election, not Marvel's "What If?" series."

If I were Hillary Clinton, I would have asked Geraldine Ferraro to resign, since if I were Hillary Clinton, I would be running a different sort of campaign. And if I were a black man and had wheels, I would be the first black male trolleycar ever, not to mention the first being ever to be both a public transit vehicle and a mammal. Aren't counterfactuals fun?

Comments

[dutchmarbel]

LJ: not that I disagree, I am just less colloquial ;)

[Turbulence]

dutchmarbel,

Thanks for explaining. I'm glad to know that apparently I don't think and apparently I'm not honest. I wonder if that only applies to me or if it applies to everyone who doesn't agree with you.

I expect that you'll have great success convincing people that they are being unfair by calling them dishonest and stupid. Keep up the good work!

[Jay Jerome]

hilzoy: "And if I were a black man and had wheels, I would be the first black male trolleycar ever, not to mention the first being ever to be both a public transit vehicle and a mammal. Aren't counterfactuals fun?"

And if Obama was a Caucasian (with or without wheels)with the same identical political experience and voting record, and the same educational background, and the same views on the war, and health insurance, and NAFTA, and the same speechifying abilities - do you think he would be getting 80 or 90 percent of the Black vote?

Although it's impossible to say with absolute certainty, I'm sure you can conclude with reasonable certainty the answer is 'no.' At best, Caucasian O'Bama might be getting 60% of the Black vote. And cascading those Black votes back into the primary and caucus results, Hillary would now be in the lead in the popular vote and the delegate vote, and Democrats would be on their way to a slam-dunk victory in the general elections.

So, "It may be counterfactual, it may be cruel" but anybody who claims Obama hasn't substantially benefited from being perceived as "Black" by Black voters, is "playing the Fool."

[KCinDC]

Jay of course ignores what effect his counterfactual might have on Obama's share of the white vote.

[hilzoy]

Jay: certainly, he has gotten black votes from it. Whether he has benefitted in the electorate as a whole is a different question. (Or possibly you think the appalachian parts of Ohio are just natural Hillary Clinton territory, and the white vote in MS would have gone for her regardless of her opponent?)

In any case, Ferraro didn't say: he's lucky to be a black man, in terms of the black vote. She said: he's lucky to be a black man. Without qualification. And I think that's ludicrous.

[Sebastian]

Turbulence, could you please dial the sarcasm down a bit?

[dutchmarbel]

@ turbulence: there should have been a comma and a 'you' between convince and to be honest. As in: it is not worth my time to try to convince you, to be honest.

Do you think that is due to you being stupid, disagreeing with me, dishonest and/or unthinking?

Responding takes a lot or time. If you want to back it up with sources it takes more time. If you weigh someone else's comments and think about how to phrase your beliefs that takes time. I don't know about you, but for me time is a limited resource. So yeah, I want to adopt husbandry as my middle name there.

In our encounters so far we have had discussions where I felt I provided links and quotes to show where my opinion came from, whilst you quite often fell back on generalities or biased posts. For me this is not a football match with a score attached, it is about discussing things I care for with folks who care about it too and who might have a different opinion or who might agree with me. But I am always short on time and discussing in English is always time consuming for me.

If you have given me the idea that you don't really listen to my arguments, or that your mind is so set that you just look for opportunities to prove that you are right, why should I take the effort of discussing? Why take the time to show you where I came from? You state that you find my evidence 'consistently weak and unconvincing', yet are insulted when I don't want to continue discussions? Why?

[Barnabas]

Dear Turbulence - greatly regret that I wearied you. Please read Dutch's replies: they mostly apply to you I think ;-).

I am not exactly the same as her, but we at least have a continent in common. I am actually rather glad to have seen a wider-ranging discussion in this thread and some clear reasoning (particularly OC Steve) on why to prefer Obama. I do think that even when you have made a decision it is wise to keep questioning it rather than reinforcing it.

In my limited view they are both good candidates and excellent reasons exist for preferring either of them. I have perhaps a peculiar european suspicion of any group enthusiasm, no matter how well-founded it seems.

[dutchmarbel]

In any case, Ferraro didn't say: he's lucky to be a black man, in terms of the black vote. She said: he's lucky to be a black man. Without qualification. And I think that's ludicrous.

Oh, I agree with you there by the way.

My first job as a young graduate was in sales, selling computer systems to companies. My collegues (90% male) assumed that I could just shorten the skirts and open another button to get the sale done. Which led to me dressing like an orthodox monotheist ;). But I found that being female gave me difficulties early in the proces. Not as early as getting the education and the job (though there were some thresholds there too), but in getting customers to trust you. I would come in as their new accountmanager and they would ask weird technical questions to see if I could answer them.

But once I answered them and gained their trust, I often found that I had an advatage to my male collegues, simply because I had been 'vetted'. They tested me, I passed, and they never really tested the male salesguys. And I became more visible, being one of the 'trusted' salesfolks.

I took Ferraro's comments like that, saying that once you overcome the hurdles there may be advantages. But in these polarized times that is a really dumb comment to make.

[Jay Jerome]

hilzoy: "In any case, Ferraro didn't say: he's lucky to be a black man, in terms of the black vote. She said: he's lucky to be a black man. Without qualification. And I think that's ludicrous."

She didn't express herself well, but there's more then a kernel of truth in her assertion: there's a Black racial component to this primary election, which has benefited Obama's candidacy; and if he wasn't perceived as 'black' he wouldn't be benefiting from it.

Some people believe that benefit is a good thing (ceiling breaking, etc); some, like me, that's it's simply reverse racism in action, and needs to be addressed; others are neutral about it: racism, Black and White, is always going to be with us, but if this time 'round Black racism helps get my preferred candidate elected, that's OK.

But it's not OK with me. I spent half my life fighting racist assumptions and attitudes. Apart from whether or not Obama has what it takes to be a good president (I have strong doubts there) the fact is that in the context of this election, Obama's perceived 'blackness' translated through the Black vote in the primaries, has propelled him into the lead.

That fact is as obvious as the nose on your face. And if people want to point that out (whether or not you believe it) why should they be called racist for alluding to it? Or snidely disparaged for making comments about Obama's 'blackness' (like yours, for Ferraro) when Obama himself has continually opted to accentuate his 'blackness?'

[dutchmarbel]

but we at least have a continent in common

A country even. A city. A house. A bed ;)

@LJ: tnxs, I remember now. That was a different thread however. You said With Hillary, I think of an observation by Shelby Foote, who wrote a multivolume overview of the Civil War. He observed that there were military leaders who performed at one level with distinction and creativity, but when promoted to a higher position, fell to pieces. I am left with the vague feeling that we have something similar here.

And I responded with < i>Ah, gut feeling aka visceral reaction. Can I juxtaposition that with my gut feeling that a lot of those 'gut feelings' sound awfully familiar? Especially when it concerns women in high positions?

In hindsight that might have been to hard. I probably was close to my period . I never wanted to give you the impression that I thought YOU were sexist or motivated by sexism. But the argument that someone is doing fine where (s)he is but might perform badly once promoted is an argument often used in the ICT world I used to work in. I had many collegues who would appreciate me highly, but would spout the most ridiculous nonsense without thinking about it - and they would in majority feel ashamed to be percieved as sexist. I spent a lot of my time explaining in those days.

I don't think I know anybody who has no prejudices. I know I have some and I know that I don't always recognize my own. That doesn't mean that I think I am a bad person, but I am glad when someone points them out to me, since I don't like having them. I regularly point out sexit remarks or idea's to folk around me who don't realize at all that they are being prejudiced. So I definately don't say these things to imply that someone *means* to have this viewpoints, I merely point to the danger involved and leave it to them to act upon that.

[dutchmarbel]

oh, typepad ate my second closing tag, and it also ate my "insert evil grin" after the period comment. Typepad should at least by waterboarded.

[Phil]

So we're capitalizing "Black" now because . . . why, exactly?

[Turbulence]

Seb: Turbulence, could you please dial the sarcasm down a bit?

Sure Seb. I apologize if I made the place more painful with use of excessive sarcasm.

dutch: there should have been a comma and a 'you' between convince and to be honest

Ah. That makes sense; with the comma, your statement no longer sounds insulting. Many thanks for clarifying.

I still think comments like "I can lead the reader to facts, but I cannot make him think." are problematic because there seems to be no recognition of the fact that people can legitimately disagree with your interpretation of the "facts".

In our encounters so far we have had discussions where I felt I provided links and quotes to show where my opinion came from, whilst you quite often fell back on generalities or biased posts.

I have tried to reply in a courteous manner citing sources when it seemed like a good idea or when asked, especially in that long thread where we exchanged comments for several days. Consequently, I don't agree with this assessment; it strikes me as rather unfair. But I could be mistaken: if you can cite cases where this happened, I might be convinced, but in the complete absence of evidence, why should I accept these accusations at face value? This has been a continuing theme in your Clinton-Obama comments: I often want to respond to them by asking for specific cites, especially when you cast aspersions on the commentariot here at OW in general without naming names or pointing to specifics.

Barnabas: I have perhaps a peculiar european suspicion of any group enthusiasm, no matter how well-founded it seems.

Indeed. Are you able to cite any evidence that proves, or even suggests, that the opinions you see are largely the result of "group enthusiasm" as opposed to different individuals reaching a consensus independently? Doing so would go a long way to persuading me of your larger arguments. I imagine everyone here agrees on the utility of oxygen, but that hardly suggests "group enthusiasm" played any role.

Moreover, you haven't really answered any of my questions in the two comments I addressed to you. Do you agree with the comment where I claimed that you were mischaracterizing other comments here?

[ThatLeftTurnInABQ]

But you're probably right about this: McCain ends up as president; and hopefully, the Dems control both houses. And if McCain is elected president, you can blame it on Obama, for pushing his way into the race, and fracturing what would have been a united, unstoppable Clinton landslide into a broken mess.

Let's suppose for a moment that Jay's counterfactual is taken as reality and pretend that there had been no serious opposition to Hillary in the Democratic primaries.

Let's review our political history. When was the last time a non-incumbent candidate ran thru the primaries with no serious opposition, leading a united party to victory the general election?

Bush in 2000.

What about before then? Hmmm...

Clinton in 1992 - nope.
Dukakis in 1988 - nope.
Reagan in 1980 - a little closer, but still nope.
Carter in 1976 - a little closer yet, but still nope.
Nixon in 1968 - closer still, if not quite a bullseye.
Eisenhower in 1952 - yep, that's a match

..and to go any further back we'd have to rewind to before WW2, which takes us into a different era politically, so this seems like as good a place as any to stop the search for parallels.

So, to summarize: non-incumbent nominees elected with the backing of a united party and no serious primary opposition:

Bush in 2000
Eisenhower in 1952
maybe Carter in 1976
maybe Nixon in 1968.

Which of these winners also enjoyed the benefit of having their party control Congress for the majority of their term in office?
Bush in 2000 and Carter in 1976.

Apart from Eisenhower in 1952, this does not look like a very happy set of precedents. Let's have a quick show of hands - which of these 4 Presidents do you think an unchallenged Hillary would have come closest to resembling, if she'd coasted to victory over McCain with a united Democratic party behind her.

On the basis of campaign style and policy positioning, I'd pick Nixon in 1968 as the best match, only with better support in Congress.

Be careful what you wish for, etc.

[Barnabas]

Turbulence:

Indeed. Are you able to cite any evidence that proves, or even suggests, that the opinions you see are largely the result of "group enthusiasm" as opposed to different individuals reaching a consensus independently? Doing so would go a long way to persuading me of your larger arguments.

Goodness, I cannot imagine what such convincing evidence would look like. All I can indicate is that there have been a vast majority of Obama-favourable posts. That supports your thesis just as well as mine. I am concerned about the absence of balance, so I would need to point to an absence.

I believe also that there is considerable scientific evidence as to the utility, rather than desirability, of oxygen. Of course breathing just oxygen is known to be damaging to the faculties, if I may hijack your analogy.

Did you have other questions: this is (for me) a voluminous thread and I may have missed them?

[matttbastard]

dm: A country even. A city. A house. A bed ;)

O rly? Do tell ;-)

[dutchmarbel]

O rly? Do tell ;-)

tsk tsk ;)