There are times when life imitates satire. One happened recently when George Bush commented on his education policy, “Childrens do learn.” Way back in April during the first Democratic presidential debate, Joe Biden, a man who is not known for his brevity, answered a question with a one word answer. Students of satire wait with baited breath for those moments when Hillary Clinton is warm and funny at the same moment, the powers that be in baseball show something that represents a backbone, and Paris Hilton turns down an opportunity to be photographed.
But I have left out one of the most absurd processes known to humanity: the Iowa Caucuses.
Whether you are a romantic or a cynic, I think you have to agree that the President of the United States holds a position of considerable influence and authority.
Given it’s importance, shouldn’t the first formal step in the election process be a sane one?
Of course it should.
Is it?
Of course not. Exhibit A: the Iowa Caucuses.
Is Iowa a microcosm of America? Let’s see, Iowa is 91% white.
That doesn’t represent America.
Does it have the same urban/rural mix as the US?
No.
It its median income in the economic middle of the US?
No.
Religiously, does it represent America?
No.
In national elections, does it have a history of voting for the candidate who is elected President?
No.
There’s more bad news.
Is the process that voters go through during the Iowa caucuses similar to the one they will visit later?
No way.
During the Iowa Caucuses less than seven per cent of the Iowa voting public meet in rooms and yak for a couple hours. They make a convoluted journey through a minefield of complex rules. The sum of these idiocies leads one candidate being declared a winner.
However, there is one tremendous benefit the Iowa primary gives us. Iowa is a relatively small state. Candidates can meet and talk with Iowans in small arenas. This is a good thing.
Let’s remember a purpose of a primary is to select the candidate from a party who is most likely to win the presidential election. Therefore, it is an excellent idea to hold the first primary in a state that is a microcosm of the United States.
The benefits of the first electoral exercise are obvious. The winner gets a tremendous boost. If the candidate gets this boost from a state that is a microcosm of the US, that victory will be good for the candidate, the candidate’s party, and the country.
Missouri Gold
Right now, Missouri is the state that is most like the US. It has the same rural/urban mix as the nation. It has the same percentage of Christians, African-Americans, and union workers as the nation. It ranks twenty-seventh in median income—for those of you who are mathematically challenged, that’s one step away from being exactly in the middle. Like the US, it has two blue coasts (the areas around St. Louis and Kansas City) with a large area of red in between.
Missouri is not one of the behemoth states. Relative to some of the electoral monsters out there, it’s downright small. It is roughly ten per cent larger than Iowa.
There’s more good news. Given the various ways that Missouri mimics the US, it should not surprise that Missourians have voted for the president longer than any other state. They’ve done so since 1960. If you allow one exception, in 1956 when it voted for Stevenson, the string goes back to 1904!
I am not advocating that the first primary be held in Missouri for the next century. I am advocating that the first primary be held in the state that comes closest to serving as a microcosm for the US.
Also, the first electoral exercise should mimic the larger exercise many of us go through the first Tuesday in November. It shouldn’t be an event where a tiny percentage of the state’s population participates. It should be a statewide election.
Call it the Little America Primary.
Regarding That Regional Primary Thing
Rightly, there is a good deal of support for rotating regional primaries. There are various plans. All divide the country into regions and rotate the regions. This would be a very good thing. Every region would get a turn at going first. Most years most regions would have a say in the nominating process. Rotating regional primaries would eradicate the primary traffic jam we will experience in 2008. However, most rotating regional primary proposals keep the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary in tact.
The New Hampshire Primary is another bad tradition of American politics. New Hampshire is 97 per cent white. It ranks first in median income. It has no history of voting with the country for the candidate who becomes president. New Hampshire doesn’t mimic the demographics of the nation.
But like Iowa, New Hampshire is a small state. This allows candidates to meet and listen and talk with citizens.
Small States
I suggest we keep the benefits of the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. Elevate the importance of the small states. It’s easy.
Require each region to vote in a particular month. Have Region One votes in February, Region Two in March, and so forth. Hold the first primary in a region in one of the small states in the region.
Every region has one humongous state. You know what I’m talking about, states like California, New York, and Texas. If the primaries held there occur on the same dates of other primaries in the region, the large states will steal most of the thunder. So let the biggest state in terms in a region—at least in terms of electoral wallop—have a stand alone primary.
That leaves two weekends for the rest of the region. Bundle the states together so that it is easier for the candidates to campaign and to buy television time. This will mean each region will have a southern section and a northern section.
To be fair, rotation within a region will be necessary. The small states in the region can rotate to determine which goes first. During one election cycle the southern section would go first, in the next, the northern.
Let’s summarize. The ides of a rotating regional primary is a very good one. But kick things off with a primary in a state that most represents America. Then in February start a series of regional primaries. Dedicate the first primary in each region to a small state. Give the Big Kahuna in each region a stand-alone. And let’s help the candidates a little and bundle the rest of the region into two sub sections. And within each region, rotate.
Call it the Fair Primary.
Some other Good Ideas
Every contest is a primary—no straw votes, no caucuses, no beauty contests.
All primaries have proportional representation. If a candidate wins half the vote, that candidate is awarded half the delegates.
So that people who work have more of an opportunity to vote, hold the elections on Friday and Saturday.
Polls close at the same time on Saturday throughout the region. Because all the states in a particular primary will be in one or two time zones, this should not be difficult.
But polls may open early. And on Friday they may remain open late. For example, areas with a large Jewish population may elect to have polls open early on Friday to allow plenty of time for people to vote before the Sabbath begins. Some areas may elect to remain open late on Friday—so that people have plenty of time to vote after work.
Make the first primary an open primary. Voters may vote once for candidate from any party. This will make the sampling even more like a cross section of America.
All these ideas will make the process more fair. And every election season it will invite new groups of people into the process. This should stimulate interest in a process central to the lives of all of us.
This would be a good thing.
Natterings
Nattering nabobs of negativity will raise all sorts of flags. The first will revolve around tradition.
My response. . . If it’s a bad tradition, change it.
Another will response will be, How will the current system be changed?
The parties, realizing what a mess things are this year should address the problem.
Call me old-fashioned, mid-Victorian, and all too provincial, but it seems to me that if something is broken and you are going to fix it, it is far better to fix the thing completely—rather than do a patch job.The current primary system is silly and chaotic. The rush to be heard early in the process is a just a symptom of a larger problem within the process we have now.
The Fair Primary is a vast improvement to the way we do things now—and it is darn close to fair.
Showing posts with label Election 2008. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Election 2008. Show all posts
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Friday, September 28, 2007
Election 2008: Hillary beats Rudy
For reasons that are very easy to explain, Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination.
Let’s not forget the obvious. She is smart. She’s savvy. She is very disciplined. She has excellent name recognition. She is intimately connected to the Bill Clinton presidency—a presidency that proliferated many economical and political prosperities. She has been more than competent during her six years in the Senate.
She is a good candidate. Unlike many, she will do the boring things (fundraising and more fundraising) and the painful things (more fundraising and even more fundraising) that are necessary to win.
One of her chief advisors is a former president, and a man who has one of the best political minds ever to step onto the American political stage.
She has assembled a team of experienced and talented pols to attempt to herd the thousand or so clowders of cats that have to be cajoled and charmed—and kicked and threatened—if a candidate intends to play the toughest of all games at the highest levels. She and they have run an excellent campaign.
Edwards and Obama have on occasion bettered her. Two examples include Edwards at The Riverside Church and Obama during the celebration of the March on Selma.
Edwards and Obama may, on occasion, go deep well. But Clinton grinds out the political ground game better than any of the other presidential candidates.
She is either very talented or very lucky.
As a green politician in charge of President Clinton’s health care initiative, Hillary’s tight-ship demeanor angered allies. Her unwillingness to bend now and compromise later made it easy for her foes to challenge and then defeat her efforts.
Her natural eagerness to be part of a pack was one of the many reasons she voted for the war in Iraq.
These were mistakes of the highest order.
Bad decisions—like the ones Hillary Clinton made years ago on health care and being an early supporter of the war in Iraq—usually turn into a sticky and gooey grime that politicians can neither hide nor dilute. Clinton has managed to turn a couple hectares of this glop into a mine rippled with deep, rich veins of experience.
Unlike Clinton, Obama made the right call on the war in Iraq all those years ago. He wisely attempted to make this campaign about judgment—and not experience.
Clinton has outflanked him. To voters, her experience matters more than his far more prescient judgment.
Obama’s entry into the race, and Clinton’s stature in the Senate have reduced Edwards to a third placer—in a country that can barely keep track of two candidates. Edwards has two things Clinton probably never will attain: a folksy likeability, and one issue for which he holds a genuine and deep passion—reducing poverty. But Edwards’ inability to gain traction outside of Iowa and Obama’s entry into the race have prevented Edwards from going head-to-head against the senator from New York.
Edwards and Obama are some of the best politicians to work a large hall in decades. But neither has achieved a similar mastery of the serial press conferences we call debates.
Clinton did.
She has survived the hits that plague every serious candidate. Last August two books were written about her. This allowed many of the sins of her past to be wadded into giant bombshells that were lobbed her way. More recently, one of her more effective money raisers developed a series of legal problems.
She and her team have responded quickly and effectively—without her or the machine suffering significant damage.
Her team has stolen effectively from the Bush 2000 campaign. There have been almost no long and deep discussions about controversial matters. But she has appeared and appeared (and appeared) in forum after forum. She appears to be accessible, but she hasn’t really been all that forthcoming. Unlike her husband, she has can focus like a laser on her message. And unlike most politicians, she is careful to temper whatever passions she has—she has committed no significant verbal miscues.
And she has shown she can triumph over prejudices. Months ago polls showed that Americans would rather elect a black man than a white woman to our nation’s highest office. But still she leads in the national polls.
For voters who favor Democratic policies or simply want change, the best news about the Clinton campaign is that she has neither said nor done things that will scar her deeply during a national political campaign.
Why Guiliani?
For reasons that are difficult to explain, Giuliani will win the Republican nomination.
Do not underestimate this man. He has managed to take one good day—his actions on September 11, 2001 and work them into such a froth that people think he is not only a good politician, but that he is also an effective leader.
Years from now people will still be scratching their heads and wondering aloud how a moderate Republican who is pro-choice, pro gun control, and has a very non-conservative approach to immigration could succeed so long and so well as a Republican presidential candidate.
He is a very savvy politician.
He speaks clearly. He deflects well. He’s projected images of toughness and decisiveness in a world that values the same.
He has been able to position himself above most of the fray.
This creates the calculus that others in the top tier will have maneuver to get what Giuliani never has aggressively sought—the mantle of the standout conservative who is from the conservative wing of the conservative party.
So like all successful politicians he has a good combination of talent (working one issue) and luck (all the others mauling each other to be the one to take on Giuliani).
A couple things will have to happen for Giuliani to succeed. McCain or others may attack Romney. Romney may just flop as the result of many of his earlier flips.
And Thompson must continue to be too timid to unleash the brimstone necessary for him to rise to the top of the top tier.
Whether Romney and the other contenders fold before the South Carolina primary, or someone emerges from the pack to challenge the current Republican leader, Giuliani will triumph.
The Election
The comments Giuliani has made about Iraq and health care and immigration—the same comments that helped him earn the nomination will hurt him a great deal—especially at first. His comments on the Iraq war and health care will hurt him with conservative Democrats and left leaning independents. His comments about immigration will hurt him with the conservatives in his party.
Clinton’s positionings as well as her message of change and hope will help her a great deal—especially at first.
Clinton will talk tough about domestic issues but adopt a play-it-safe policy on Iraq. The war in Iraq will ebb and flow in importance. Health care and apprehensions about the environment will be real assets to Clinton. Controversies about Giuliani’s decisions as mayor of New York and concerns about his lack of foreign policy experience will haunt him. Therefore, as they do in most presidential elections, on the issues, the Democrat will have the illusive high ground with most Americans.
But as it is every election year, Americans and its media will continue to be reluctant to be overly logical or particularly detail oriented. And because of this and other reasons, personality will play a far more important role that it should. Many will love Giuliani’s persona of the tough-guy decider. Hillary’s chilly public demeanor and multifaceted caution will plague her. In matters where personality triumphs, Giuliani will prevail.
Clinton will beat the experience drum.
Giuliani will try to cast thunderclouds of fear over the country.
There will be a lot of gibberish. Pundits will talk and talk (and talk) about whether back-to-back Clinton administrations, followed by back-to-back Bush administrations should be followed by another administration headed by someone named Clinton. There will be a lot of gibberish about what role Bill Clinton will have in a Hillary Clinton administration. A law prevents him from holding a cabinet post, so it is likely he will be an ambassador at-large.
There will be a lot of gibberish about Giuliani wearing dresses, living with gay men, and about his troubled relationships with members of his own family.
Both campaigns will respond to threats quickly, run successful ads, and campaign heavily in what the punditocracy will call the purple states.
The senator from New York will be admired for doing so well and being liked so little. The former mayor of New York City will be admired for doing so well while running against so many classic Republican policies.
Women, Hispanics, voters with graduate degrees, and many young people will support Clinton—often with what some might even call passion. Huge numbers of white men will line up behind Giuliani. And in November 2008 Clinton will be elected president.
In retrospect, to many it will not appear ever to have been all that close. But this will be a deception only fools and diehard Clinton supporters will embrace.
And it’s Aftermath
After the election, America will pat itself on the back—and almost every other part of its metaphorical anatomy—for being so open to a women—and a black. A more intelligent response will be from those who wonder why it took so long a woman or a black to reach so high and travel so far. Votes cast by Hispanics in the election will provoke many to use the words like “sea change” and “transformational.” The realities of Obama’s campaign will be tweaked as his future is aggrandized.
As Shrub’s presidency ends, many will consider the foolish decisions he made. There will be catalogue after catalogue of the failed policies he mismanaged. There will be assessments of the impact his mistakes had on his presidency and his party. Most will be far too kind. Only a few will be as harsh as the truth suggests they should be.
Many of the messes Shrub made are particularly pervasive, corrosive, and sticky. Plenty will wonder if Hillary Clinton—or anyone—is smart enough, savvy enough, determined enough, as well as talented and lucky enough to make political gold out some of the goo Shrub and his cronies will leave behind.
As teams of bright, passionate, and optimistic people prepare to grab the reigns of the most powerful nation the world has ever seen, optimisms and enthusiasms will flow naturally . . . and far too easily. Let’s hope that many in Clinton’s administration maintain an understanding of history as well as something that resembles balance. Those who do will have to realize how easily it will be for the blowback from the recent past to make a shambles of the present. Most of the problems Shrub faced are now worse because of his response to them. When the hoopla of the election finally fades, sober minds will have to realize that the problems that drowned Shrub’s administration could wreak the same havoc with Hillary’s.
Let’s not forget the obvious. She is smart. She’s savvy. She is very disciplined. She has excellent name recognition. She is intimately connected to the Bill Clinton presidency—a presidency that proliferated many economical and political prosperities. She has been more than competent during her six years in the Senate.
She is a good candidate. Unlike many, she will do the boring things (fundraising and more fundraising) and the painful things (more fundraising and even more fundraising) that are necessary to win.
One of her chief advisors is a former president, and a man who has one of the best political minds ever to step onto the American political stage.
She has assembled a team of experienced and talented pols to attempt to herd the thousand or so clowders of cats that have to be cajoled and charmed—and kicked and threatened—if a candidate intends to play the toughest of all games at the highest levels. She and they have run an excellent campaign.
Edwards and Obama have on occasion bettered her. Two examples include Edwards at The Riverside Church and Obama during the celebration of the March on Selma.
Edwards and Obama may, on occasion, go deep well. But Clinton grinds out the political ground game better than any of the other presidential candidates.
She is either very talented or very lucky.
As a green politician in charge of President Clinton’s health care initiative, Hillary’s tight-ship demeanor angered allies. Her unwillingness to bend now and compromise later made it easy for her foes to challenge and then defeat her efforts.
Her natural eagerness to be part of a pack was one of the many reasons she voted for the war in Iraq.
These were mistakes of the highest order.
Bad decisions—like the ones Hillary Clinton made years ago on health care and being an early supporter of the war in Iraq—usually turn into a sticky and gooey grime that politicians can neither hide nor dilute. Clinton has managed to turn a couple hectares of this glop into a mine rippled with deep, rich veins of experience.
Unlike Clinton, Obama made the right call on the war in Iraq all those years ago. He wisely attempted to make this campaign about judgment—and not experience.
Clinton has outflanked him. To voters, her experience matters more than his far more prescient judgment.
Obama’s entry into the race, and Clinton’s stature in the Senate have reduced Edwards to a third placer—in a country that can barely keep track of two candidates. Edwards has two things Clinton probably never will attain: a folksy likeability, and one issue for which he holds a genuine and deep passion—reducing poverty. But Edwards’ inability to gain traction outside of Iowa and Obama’s entry into the race have prevented Edwards from going head-to-head against the senator from New York.
Edwards and Obama are some of the best politicians to work a large hall in decades. But neither has achieved a similar mastery of the serial press conferences we call debates.
Clinton did.
She has survived the hits that plague every serious candidate. Last August two books were written about her. This allowed many of the sins of her past to be wadded into giant bombshells that were lobbed her way. More recently, one of her more effective money raisers developed a series of legal problems.
She and her team have responded quickly and effectively—without her or the machine suffering significant damage.
Her team has stolen effectively from the Bush 2000 campaign. There have been almost no long and deep discussions about controversial matters. But she has appeared and appeared (and appeared) in forum after forum. She appears to be accessible, but she hasn’t really been all that forthcoming. Unlike her husband, she has can focus like a laser on her message. And unlike most politicians, she is careful to temper whatever passions she has—she has committed no significant verbal miscues.
And she has shown she can triumph over prejudices. Months ago polls showed that Americans would rather elect a black man than a white woman to our nation’s highest office. But still she leads in the national polls.
For voters who favor Democratic policies or simply want change, the best news about the Clinton campaign is that she has neither said nor done things that will scar her deeply during a national political campaign.
Why Guiliani?
For reasons that are difficult to explain, Giuliani will win the Republican nomination.
Do not underestimate this man. He has managed to take one good day—his actions on September 11, 2001 and work them into such a froth that people think he is not only a good politician, but that he is also an effective leader.
Years from now people will still be scratching their heads and wondering aloud how a moderate Republican who is pro-choice, pro gun control, and has a very non-conservative approach to immigration could succeed so long and so well as a Republican presidential candidate.
He is a very savvy politician.
He speaks clearly. He deflects well. He’s projected images of toughness and decisiveness in a world that values the same.
He has been able to position himself above most of the fray.
This creates the calculus that others in the top tier will have maneuver to get what Giuliani never has aggressively sought—the mantle of the standout conservative who is from the conservative wing of the conservative party.
So like all successful politicians he has a good combination of talent (working one issue) and luck (all the others mauling each other to be the one to take on Giuliani).
A couple things will have to happen for Giuliani to succeed. McCain or others may attack Romney. Romney may just flop as the result of many of his earlier flips.
And Thompson must continue to be too timid to unleash the brimstone necessary for him to rise to the top of the top tier.
Whether Romney and the other contenders fold before the South Carolina primary, or someone emerges from the pack to challenge the current Republican leader, Giuliani will triumph.
The Election
The comments Giuliani has made about Iraq and health care and immigration—the same comments that helped him earn the nomination will hurt him a great deal—especially at first. His comments on the Iraq war and health care will hurt him with conservative Democrats and left leaning independents. His comments about immigration will hurt him with the conservatives in his party.
Clinton’s positionings as well as her message of change and hope will help her a great deal—especially at first.
Clinton will talk tough about domestic issues but adopt a play-it-safe policy on Iraq. The war in Iraq will ebb and flow in importance. Health care and apprehensions about the environment will be real assets to Clinton. Controversies about Giuliani’s decisions as mayor of New York and concerns about his lack of foreign policy experience will haunt him. Therefore, as they do in most presidential elections, on the issues, the Democrat will have the illusive high ground with most Americans.
But as it is every election year, Americans and its media will continue to be reluctant to be overly logical or particularly detail oriented. And because of this and other reasons, personality will play a far more important role that it should. Many will love Giuliani’s persona of the tough-guy decider. Hillary’s chilly public demeanor and multifaceted caution will plague her. In matters where personality triumphs, Giuliani will prevail.
Clinton will beat the experience drum.
Giuliani will try to cast thunderclouds of fear over the country.
There will be a lot of gibberish. Pundits will talk and talk (and talk) about whether back-to-back Clinton administrations, followed by back-to-back Bush administrations should be followed by another administration headed by someone named Clinton. There will be a lot of gibberish about what role Bill Clinton will have in a Hillary Clinton administration. A law prevents him from holding a cabinet post, so it is likely he will be an ambassador at-large.
There will be a lot of gibberish about Giuliani wearing dresses, living with gay men, and about his troubled relationships with members of his own family.
Both campaigns will respond to threats quickly, run successful ads, and campaign heavily in what the punditocracy will call the purple states.
The senator from New York will be admired for doing so well and being liked so little. The former mayor of New York City will be admired for doing so well while running against so many classic Republican policies.
Women, Hispanics, voters with graduate degrees, and many young people will support Clinton—often with what some might even call passion. Huge numbers of white men will line up behind Giuliani. And in November 2008 Clinton will be elected president.
In retrospect, to many it will not appear ever to have been all that close. But this will be a deception only fools and diehard Clinton supporters will embrace.
And it’s Aftermath
After the election, America will pat itself on the back—and almost every other part of its metaphorical anatomy—for being so open to a women—and a black. A more intelligent response will be from those who wonder why it took so long a woman or a black to reach so high and travel so far. Votes cast by Hispanics in the election will provoke many to use the words like “sea change” and “transformational.” The realities of Obama’s campaign will be tweaked as his future is aggrandized.
As Shrub’s presidency ends, many will consider the foolish decisions he made. There will be catalogue after catalogue of the failed policies he mismanaged. There will be assessments of the impact his mistakes had on his presidency and his party. Most will be far too kind. Only a few will be as harsh as the truth suggests they should be.
Many of the messes Shrub made are particularly pervasive, corrosive, and sticky. Plenty will wonder if Hillary Clinton—or anyone—is smart enough, savvy enough, determined enough, as well as talented and lucky enough to make political gold out some of the goo Shrub and his cronies will leave behind.
As teams of bright, passionate, and optimistic people prepare to grab the reigns of the most powerful nation the world has ever seen, optimisms and enthusiasms will flow naturally . . . and far too easily. Let’s hope that many in Clinton’s administration maintain an understanding of history as well as something that resembles balance. Those who do will have to realize how easily it will be for the blowback from the recent past to make a shambles of the present. Most of the problems Shrub faced are now worse because of his response to them. When the hoopla of the election finally fades, sober minds will have to realize that the problems that drowned Shrub’s administration could wreak the same havoc with Hillary’s.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)