Saturday, June 21, 2008
Not News
White chocolate is fucking gross. It isn't even chocolate, it is chocolate fats or something like that. It wouldn't matter if it is made from tears Jesus cried on the Cross. It is fucking gross.
Friday, June 20, 2008
What Happens When
What happens when global factor prices actually converge? Specifically in the global labor market? What happens when it is no longer possible for a company to move to another country to get cheap labor? Could this occur due to shipping costs increasing from the price of fuels increasing such that it no longer becomes profitable to sell goods made in one country all the way around the world?
I really don't know and the problem is eating at me.
I wish I knew some smart economists who could help me unpack these questions and find good answers for them.
I really don't know and the problem is eating at me.
I wish I knew some smart economists who could help me unpack these questions and find good answers for them.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
The Importance of Doing Something
So over at mydd.com, Jerome Armstrong has post up about how McCain's offshore oil drilling gambit appears to be helping McCain make headway with Florida and Ohio voters in that according to Rasmussen more voters support McCain when they find out he is for offshore oil drilling and Obama is opposed. Now, this is appears to be a tricky problem for Obama. On closer inspection however, the political problem isn't that difficult. Just like his gas tax gambit, McCain is banking on the "well at least we are trying to do something to alleviate your pain at the pump" type of support. Much like Roosevelt's actions in the Depression, as described by Jonathan Alter, just doing something, anything, to help Americans is a good way to get support. To address this, Obama, and the Democratic party, need to get all populist on McCain. This requires making the argument that McCain is willing to risk great environmental damage for what will amount to a give away to Oil companies who are making record profits. This argument is going to require leadership to walk Americans through the fallacious reasoning of the Republican Party and the McCain campaign. There are several key talking points here that need to be hammered again and again.
-Any gains from offshore drilling won't occur for at least 10 years.
-McCain is relying on Big Oil Companies, with their record profits, to pass any savings on to consumers.
-This is another typical Bush Republican give away to oil companies with no protections in place for the Consumer, and after 8 years of these policies, America deserves better.
-America deserves a future of renewable energy that will strengthen the national economy, not plans to extend the life of tired old technologies at the expense of the people as a whole.
Obviously those aren't as refined as they could be, but I am just throwing things out. Properly structured this is a political fight the Democrats can win, but simply attacking McCain as I described isn't enough.
As I mentioned above, McCain is going for the "well at least he is trying to help us" support. Attacking McCain as I described tries to change that thought process to "He isn't trying to help us, he is trying to help the oil companies." There is still an opening, if not a necessity, for Obama to also come out with some proposal that makes sense as a way to help Americans. I am not sure exactly what the best proposal would be, but it must do two things: 1) continue the incentives brought about by high fuel prices to develop transportation technologies that are not reliant on the burning of fossil fuels at the current rate of consumption and 2) alleviate the pain to the individual consumer/voter of the transition away from those technologies. Put differently, Obama should articulate a way for the United States to move away from fossil fuels, and the prosperity that will bring with it, while at the same time helping those feeling the fossil fuel pinch.
Dang, I rewrote that last sentence and it still sounds too wordy. That idea needs to be simplified down more for talking points/sound bite purposes.
-Any gains from offshore drilling won't occur for at least 10 years.
-McCain is relying on Big Oil Companies, with their record profits, to pass any savings on to consumers.
-This is another typical Bush Republican give away to oil companies with no protections in place for the Consumer, and after 8 years of these policies, America deserves better.
-America deserves a future of renewable energy that will strengthen the national economy, not plans to extend the life of tired old technologies at the expense of the people as a whole.
Obviously those aren't as refined as they could be, but I am just throwing things out. Properly structured this is a political fight the Democrats can win, but simply attacking McCain as I described isn't enough.
As I mentioned above, McCain is going for the "well at least he is trying to help us" support. Attacking McCain as I described tries to change that thought process to "He isn't trying to help us, he is trying to help the oil companies." There is still an opening, if not a necessity, for Obama to also come out with some proposal that makes sense as a way to help Americans. I am not sure exactly what the best proposal would be, but it must do two things: 1) continue the incentives brought about by high fuel prices to develop transportation technologies that are not reliant on the burning of fossil fuels at the current rate of consumption and 2) alleviate the pain to the individual consumer/voter of the transition away from those technologies. Put differently, Obama should articulate a way for the United States to move away from fossil fuels, and the prosperity that will bring with it, while at the same time helping those feeling the fossil fuel pinch.
Dang, I rewrote that last sentence and it still sounds too wordy. That idea needs to be simplified down more for talking points/sound bite purposes.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Tied! The Media Narrative
All abouts the Liberal Blogosphere is disgust at the fact that the apparent narrative selected by the media for this election is that it is a dead heat tie between John McCain (I wrote John W. McSame initially, but I don't want to resort to such name calling) and Barack Obama. Many in the blogosphere are moaning the fact the media doesn't tell the true story which is the impending Obamanami that will sweep the nation around November. I personally am coming to like the chosen narrative for several reasons, that in true bloggin' fashion, will follow.
First, the narrative of a tie is good because it means we have to work harder. We don't get lulled into thinking that we are ahead so that means we can coast. Obama looks terrible when he coasts. He is going to have to be a scrapper to win this election, and even if the campaign's internals say they should coast, the media narrative prevents that coasting from occurring.
Secondly, what are the alternative narratives? We could have the Obama inevitability narrative, or Obamanevitability, as the kids are calling it. This is a terrible narrative for many many reasons, not the least of which Clintonevitability worked out so well for Hilldozer (I miss her). Related to this point is that if Obama is the front runner by far, Little Mac (go go Boxing Rapist's Punch Out!) becomes the underdog. That is a bad narrative to have because we don't want McCain to be the underdog. With the way McCain and Bush are tag teaming on policy these days it should be impossible for McCain to be considered the underdog. That will change if the liberal blogosphere gets its way in shaping the media narrative to be Obamanevitability though.
If the liberal blogosphere succeeds though, the question will become is the success of changing the media narrative worth the potential harm to Obama by becoming seen as inevitable. I don't think that success is worth it though because the Obamanevitability has the advantage of becoming closer and closer to being true. Which means the liberal blogosphere shouldn't need much help in getting it to become the media narrative. What would be harder is forcing the media narrative to remain "the Elections tied!"
First, the narrative of a tie is good because it means we have to work harder. We don't get lulled into thinking that we are ahead so that means we can coast. Obama looks terrible when he coasts. He is going to have to be a scrapper to win this election, and even if the campaign's internals say they should coast, the media narrative prevents that coasting from occurring.
Secondly, what are the alternative narratives? We could have the Obama inevitability narrative, or Obamanevitability, as the kids are calling it. This is a terrible narrative for many many reasons, not the least of which Clintonevitability worked out so well for Hilldozer (I miss her). Related to this point is that if Obama is the front runner by far, Little Mac (go go Boxing Rapist's Punch Out!) becomes the underdog. That is a bad narrative to have because we don't want McCain to be the underdog. With the way McCain and Bush are tag teaming on policy these days it should be impossible for McCain to be considered the underdog. That will change if the liberal blogosphere gets its way in shaping the media narrative to be Obamanevitability though.
If the liberal blogosphere succeeds though, the question will become is the success of changing the media narrative worth the potential harm to Obama by becoming seen as inevitable. I don't think that success is worth it though because the Obamanevitability has the advantage of becoming closer and closer to being true. Which means the liberal blogosphere shouldn't need much help in getting it to become the media narrative. What would be harder is forcing the media narrative to remain "the Elections tied!"
Electoral Vote Prediction Wednesdays!
Welcome to the inaugural Electoral Vote Prediction Wednesday! Hopefully this will become a recurring feature. Like most prediction things, this will probably end up telling the dear reader more about what I think about the Presidential race than any thing close to reality. I have done my cursory look at the polls and am feeling pretty good about an Obama landslide, even though McCain is the Lazarus of the 2008 election. Not letting that get in my way, I feel like the electoral college will come out thusly:
Obama-412
McCain-126
Insanity? Probably. But it is the first prediction, and I am feeling frisky.
Here is the breakdown state by state. Starting on the East Coast
Obama-ME, NH, VT, MA, CT, RI, NY, NJ, DC, PA, WV, VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, OH, MI, IN, IL, WI, MN, IA, MO, ND, SD, MT, CO, NM, NV, WA, OR, and CA.
McCain-KY, TN, AL, MS, AR, LA, NE, KS, OK, TX, WY, ID, UT, AZ.
At this point, I see Obama taking the Coastal South including the Carolinas, Georgia, and Florida. I also think Obama will make gains in the Northern Plains and Mountain States of the Dakotas and Montana.
Remember there are no hard and fast rules here, and if anything I played really fast and loose with this prediction (Ah, mixing metaphors and playing with the meanings of words). We will just call this the Landslide Prediction Version 1. Version 2, if it appears likely will have other states switching like Mississippi and maybe Arizona.
We will return to this next Wednesday. Maybe.
Obama-412
McCain-126
Insanity? Probably. But it is the first prediction, and I am feeling frisky.
Here is the breakdown state by state. Starting on the East Coast
Obama-ME, NH, VT, MA, CT, RI, NY, NJ, DC, PA, WV, VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, OH, MI, IN, IL, WI, MN, IA, MO, ND, SD, MT, CO, NM, NV, WA, OR, and CA.
McCain-KY, TN, AL, MS, AR, LA, NE, KS, OK, TX, WY, ID, UT, AZ.
At this point, I see Obama taking the Coastal South including the Carolinas, Georgia, and Florida. I also think Obama will make gains in the Northern Plains and Mountain States of the Dakotas and Montana.
Remember there are no hard and fast rules here, and if anything I played really fast and loose with this prediction (Ah, mixing metaphors and playing with the meanings of words). We will just call this the Landslide Prediction Version 1. Version 2, if it appears likely will have other states switching like Mississippi and maybe Arizona.
We will return to this next Wednesday. Maybe.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Do Not Try to Disarm
I was reading a long today about potential vice presidential candidates for Obama. A common theme in every article regarding vice presidential candidates is how each candidate neutralizes potential attacks against the top of the ticket. For example, some folks say Obama should choose Wes Clark or Jim Webb because they will help inoculate him against attacks on his foreign policy credibility. Another example is that Obama should choose McCaskill or Sebelius to help himself with women. This type of reasoning is flawed for a number of reasons. Perhaps the greatest problem with this reasoning is the belief that simply having a person who has military experience or is a woman is enough that one will not be attacked on that issue. John Kerry proved this not to be the case. Anyone can be attacked on any point regardless of what that person specifically embodies. The attack isn't what is important, the given candidate's response is the crucial matter. Relatedly, simply being a war hero (using that term in the loosest possible sense as most in the media and politics do) or being a woman doesn't forward a winning political argument in and of itself. This is best seen in John McCain in the current cycle, but John Kerry and Al Gore also embody this point. Specifically, relating to McCain, what about flying attack aircraft (the awesome A-1 Skyraider and the A-4 Skyhawk), getting shot down, and spending years in a POW camp does not seem to me to provide any relevant experience to being President of the United States. The only tenuous link is to the commander in chief powers, but flying aircraft, getting shot down, and spending years in a POW camp means one specifically does not have the experience leading large groups of people similar to being the civilian commander of the armed forces. Now, I realize that McCain retired a Captain, and his Navy career extended beyond his time in Hanoi, but the point is still there. It is incumbent upon McCain to make the argument why that experience matters. Simply having it means nothing. Ultimately, Democrats should stop making this mistake, and instead should seek a Vice Presidential nominee who is going to best make the arguments (read as rhetorical skills) the Democratic Party needs to win the White House and increase our majorities in Congress. It doesn't matter if that person has a great biography.
On a similar note, regarding the connecting of experience to arguments, Obama does this very well when talking about his experiences as a community organizer exposed him to all sorts of people and helped him gain a greater understanding of what people face on a daily basis in this country. This is a great example of what we need in a candidate and vice presidential candidate. Just being a community organizer or a war hero means nothing on its face.
On a similar note, regarding the connecting of experience to arguments, Obama does this very well when talking about his experiences as a community organizer exposed him to all sorts of people and helped him gain a greater understanding of what people face on a daily basis in this country. This is a great example of what we need in a candidate and vice presidential candidate. Just being a community organizer or a war hero means nothing on its face.
Monday, June 16, 2008
A Loaded Question
Shouldn't the Right wing world view, and its detachment from anything approaching "reality", be enough to disqualify a right wing President such as John McCain?
Sometimes I think McCain is actually smart enough not to believe the insane points of view of the far right. Other times not so much.
Part of the problem facing the Democrats this election bears on this point. Out of touch needs to become the watchwords. However, the republicans are attempting to make their greatest weakness, their being completely out of touch with the times and with the destruction their policies have wrought, into a slam on McCain's age. I am sure they believe this will inoculate them from electoral disaster in the fall, and it might if the Democrats don't step up to the plate on hammering this point home.
Also, at some point, I will begin making electoral college predictions. These will be completely by the seat of my pants with no real methodology behind each prediction, other than cursory looks at whatever polling data is available and my own gut feeling on it. I will update my predictions repeatedly as we get closer to the election stopping on the Monday before. Maybe if I think about this more, I can schedule when I make a prediction, but I am not making any promises.
Sometimes I think McCain is actually smart enough not to believe the insane points of view of the far right. Other times not so much.
Part of the problem facing the Democrats this election bears on this point. Out of touch needs to become the watchwords. However, the republicans are attempting to make their greatest weakness, their being completely out of touch with the times and with the destruction their policies have wrought, into a slam on McCain's age. I am sure they believe this will inoculate them from electoral disaster in the fall, and it might if the Democrats don't step up to the plate on hammering this point home.
Also, at some point, I will begin making electoral college predictions. These will be completely by the seat of my pants with no real methodology behind each prediction, other than cursory looks at whatever polling data is available and my own gut feeling on it. I will update my predictions repeatedly as we get closer to the election stopping on the Monday before. Maybe if I think about this more, I can schedule when I make a prediction, but I am not making any promises.
Friday, June 13, 2008
What 60s bands still deserve respect?
So I was ponderin' the 1960s today. Part of my thoughts involved how much Boomers ejaculate themselves over their music. Really want to start a fight with someone over 50? Tell them their music sucks. You won't hear the end of it. In light of this, I had the question that makes up the title of this post. What bands from the 1960s still deserve respect? Or for a finer point, what bands from the 1960s are true classics, not just Boomer viewed classics. My list would probably start with Beach Boys, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones. All of which are obvious, although I would say a case could be made against each as well (My case against the beatles would be all their music sounds the same, be it early or later stuff, and their innovations were coming anyway. They were also sell outs, both early on and as their career progressed but that is another argument.) The whole goal here is to develop the canon of 60s bands, who were the most essential at the time and for later development of popular music.
Monday, June 09, 2008
Joe Loserman
Why is it so hard for the Democrats to beat this guy? To shut him up so that he has no credibility with the American people? Obviously the narrow majority in the Senate figures into this equation, but Lieberman really is a terrible politician and shouldn't be that hard to smack down.
Wouldn't an effective strategy for beating Lieberman be emasculating him the same way he consistently was emasculated by the Right during the 2000 election? It just seems like that the easiest way to get rid of Lieberman would be, in the next Congress, when the Democratic Majority is larger, to simply amend every bill cutting any money in it for Connecticut placed there by Lieberman. Couple this with a full out assault on Joe Lieberman as a person to the point he has no credibility left. If the Democrats were daring, they would implement this strategy now. Daring and aggressive are two things that haven't defined the Democrats for some time though.
Wouldn't an effective strategy for beating Lieberman be emasculating him the same way he consistently was emasculated by the Right during the 2000 election? It just seems like that the easiest way to get rid of Lieberman would be, in the next Congress, when the Democratic Majority is larger, to simply amend every bill cutting any money in it for Connecticut placed there by Lieberman. Couple this with a full out assault on Joe Lieberman as a person to the point he has no credibility left. If the Democrats were daring, they would implement this strategy now. Daring and aggressive are two things that haven't defined the Democrats for some time though.
Things I am thinking about today
Misogny versus Racism, which is more pernicious, what are the roots of each, what can be done about each. Are they the same type of problem? At first glance it appears so, but I am guessing, to more or less quote a more or less wise man, "its a bit more complicated than that",
North Korea. How does this specific political economic equilibrium exist. I don't get it. Sure it is a one party state or a personalistic dictatorship, but I really don't understand how it exists. On some level political economic structures have to be supported by more than just the will of one person, which is what makes North Korea so puzzling to me. Obviously I am just ignorant about the situation, but I would like to know more.
The Weather. What the hell. Seriously, can we have more Thunderstorms and tornadoes please? Jesus. Whatever.
North Korea. How does this specific political economic equilibrium exist. I don't get it. Sure it is a one party state or a personalistic dictatorship, but I really don't understand how it exists. On some level political economic structures have to be supported by more than just the will of one person, which is what makes North Korea so puzzling to me. Obviously I am just ignorant about the situation, but I would like to know more.
The Weather. What the hell. Seriously, can we have more Thunderstorms and tornadoes please? Jesus. Whatever.
Saturday, June 07, 2008
What the hell?
Senator Clinton, I am watching your speech, and I got a question. Where the hell has this been? Thematically, this speech is amazing, and you have a fantastic delivery. This speech really shows great instincts and is a great speech. Also, this speech just shows how bad of a candidate McCain is. If you can just hold this feeling right now, we, the Democratic party, need you on the campaign trail
Friday, June 06, 2008
Rhetorical difference between liberals and conservatives
Rereading my last post, I had this thought.
I wonder if there has been any studies done on differences in rhetoric use by political parties that compares the parties' rhetoric against each other. Essentially, I wonder if there is any variation in the parties' rhetoric attributable to the parties' positioning on an ideological scale. It seems to me that the Democrats, and probably left of center parties in general, say "we" a lot. Republicans on the other hand say "you" a lot. Now, one could assume that over time, as parties were able to test the efficacy of certain rhetoric, there would be convergence of rhetoric such that there wouldn't be a distinguishable difference. Nonetheless, the topic intrigues me.
I wonder if there has been any studies done on differences in rhetoric use by political parties that compares the parties' rhetoric against each other. Essentially, I wonder if there is any variation in the parties' rhetoric attributable to the parties' positioning on an ideological scale. It seems to me that the Democrats, and probably left of center parties in general, say "we" a lot. Republicans on the other hand say "you" a lot. Now, one could assume that over time, as parties were able to test the efficacy of certain rhetoric, there would be convergence of rhetoric such that there wouldn't be a distinguishable difference. Nonetheless, the topic intrigues me.
Collapsing Conservatism
I believe I have mentioned in the past the ongoing discussion, that seems to have slowed a bit lately, amongst intellectual righty bloggin' types about the intellectual bankruptcy of conservative ideology at the current moment. I have had two posts on this topic brewing for awhile, but haven't really found the desire to write either one. Well, now I so desire. I am sure one of those intellectual righty bloggin' types have already covered this but none the less here is my view from the Central time zone. I think there is an extreme self centeredness at the heart of right wing ideology today. More than likely it has always been there, but it seems ever present now. To exemplify, I am going to use an anecdote from some former roommates of mine, good conservatives all, even if one wouldn't admit it.
At the time of Hurrican Katrina, these smart young men could not wrap their heads around why the black folks of New Orleans just didn't leave the city before hand following the evacuation order. Further, they couldn't stand the fact that "those people" then had the audacity to expect the federal government to bail them out of the disastrous situation in which they found themselves. Now I somewhat share sympathy with the idea that it is stupid to let people live below sea level on a coast. I am not sure if I have blogged about how I do not think we should be rebuilding massive parts of NOLA or not, but this story isn't about me, so lets return to my conservative roommates at the time.
In light of their stated opinions regarding those trapped in New Orleans at the time of Katrina, I pointed out that everyone everywhere in the United States expects the government to bail them out from disasters, whether it is hurricanes in the East, Tornadoes in the Midwest, or forest fires and earthquakes out West. Politically, this is one of the things we expect our government to do. As an aside conservatives might want to add rebuild after disasters to their mantra of the goverment should only build roads and defend the nation. Returning to the point at hand, my conservative roommates response was very similar to my point about living below sea level, but broader. Simply, they did not believe that people should live in areas in which such natural disasters existed if those people couldn't afford to rebuild themselves after such a disaster. We are coming up on the ultimate point, so hold on. When I pointed out that they likely would not be able to afford to rebuild after a disaster such as Katrina, their rejoinder was that they wouldn't live anywhere like that anyway.
What is important about this anecdote is that in the course of a conversation with two conservatives, is that their justifications for their beliefs ultimately rested on the idea that disasters wouldn't happen to them. The discussion kept coming down to what my friends and roommates as individuals. Broader intellectual points be damned, bad things just weren't going to happen to these two roommates so obviously the government shouldn't do anything to help anyone. This must be the much discussed "optimism" of conservatism. To me, it seemed exceptionally self centered and the reasoning infantile. It should make sense that if this is the ultimate foundation of American conservatism, and as it waters down this does seem to be the message, then it makes sense that conservatives are intellectually bankrupt right now.
At the time of Hurrican Katrina, these smart young men could not wrap their heads around why the black folks of New Orleans just didn't leave the city before hand following the evacuation order. Further, they couldn't stand the fact that "those people" then had the audacity to expect the federal government to bail them out of the disastrous situation in which they found themselves. Now I somewhat share sympathy with the idea that it is stupid to let people live below sea level on a coast. I am not sure if I have blogged about how I do not think we should be rebuilding massive parts of NOLA or not, but this story isn't about me, so lets return to my conservative roommates at the time.
In light of their stated opinions regarding those trapped in New Orleans at the time of Katrina, I pointed out that everyone everywhere in the United States expects the government to bail them out from disasters, whether it is hurricanes in the East, Tornadoes in the Midwest, or forest fires and earthquakes out West. Politically, this is one of the things we expect our government to do. As an aside conservatives might want to add rebuild after disasters to their mantra of the goverment should only build roads and defend the nation. Returning to the point at hand, my conservative roommates response was very similar to my point about living below sea level, but broader. Simply, they did not believe that people should live in areas in which such natural disasters existed if those people couldn't afford to rebuild themselves after such a disaster. We are coming up on the ultimate point, so hold on. When I pointed out that they likely would not be able to afford to rebuild after a disaster such as Katrina, their rejoinder was that they wouldn't live anywhere like that anyway.
What is important about this anecdote is that in the course of a conversation with two conservatives, is that their justifications for their beliefs ultimately rested on the idea that disasters wouldn't happen to them. The discussion kept coming down to what my friends and roommates as individuals. Broader intellectual points be damned, bad things just weren't going to happen to these two roommates so obviously the government shouldn't do anything to help anyone. This must be the much discussed "optimism" of conservatism. To me, it seemed exceptionally self centered and the reasoning infantile. It should make sense that if this is the ultimate foundation of American conservatism, and as it waters down this does seem to be the message, then it makes sense that conservatives are intellectually bankrupt right now.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Stupid Media Actions
I really hate complaining about the media. I think it is a waste of time. However, I am going to break my hatred of complaining about the media to ... complain about the media! My basic problem comes from something I just saw on Hardball. Jonathan Alter, how I really respect, just gave a lengthy hypothetical of possible was Clinton could withdraw from the race after Tuesday's end of the primary. After reviewing possibilities such as Clinton joint appearing with Obama in Minneapolis as a way for Clinton to appear gracious at the end of the election, Alter proceeded to bash Clinton for not doing his hypothetical. In fairness to Alter, he did mention how he suggested his hypothetical to someone at the Clinton campaign, and then shockingly, they didn't do it. Perhaps this gives him some justification for bashing Clinton. I mean, her campaign didn't follow Alter's BRILLIANT suggestion.
It just really gets my goat (I don't know what that means) when the persons in the media create hypothetical situations and then bash any given candidate for not following that hypothetical. Boo on you Jonathan Alter, Boo on you. And to think that I read all of your book about Roosevelt.
It just really gets my goat (I don't know what that means) when the persons in the media create hypothetical situations and then bash any given candidate for not following that hypothetical. Boo on you Jonathan Alter, Boo on you. And to think that I read all of your book about Roosevelt.
Woo Who?
So Obama has won it. That is good I guess. I will miss Hillary's never ending campaign though. I think the whole process has been very good for the Democratic party. An end was necessary though. One thing on my mind now that the primary is ostensibly over, is the need for Clinton's voters to become Obama voters. As I mentioned before, I think this will happen.
However, other commentators, one's with actual platforms from which to broadcast their ideas have been discussing the need for Obama to woo Clinton's supporters. These calls generally focus on the two to three groups that Obama must win over. These groups are women, working class whites, and Reagan Democrats.
Before discussing these groups, it should be pointed out that any call for Obama to woo Clinton voters must also explain why those voters didn't vote for Obama in the first place. Given the minuscule policy differences between Obama and Clinton, Obama's wooing shouldn't be too difficult as there should be no major hang up for Clinton voters to switch their support. However, as was well documented in the final primaries, a portion of Clinton supporters appeared to be voting for her because she was white. It seems to me that there isn't much Obama can do to woo these voters. Their support is just lost. Now, in this election, that shouldn't be as big of a deal as it has been in past elections, as many of those who would never vote for a black man are already Republicans, who wouldn't vote for a Democrat of any skin color. The main take away point here is that Obama cannot woo the voters who voted against him because he was black, and the explanation of voter motive is necessary to any discussion of the efficacy of Obama's wooing efforts. This point is dodged by many of those calling for a woo-athon by Obama as they do not want to confront the ugly reality of Hillary's support as the race progressed to its conclusion.
Now, returning to the three groups. I am not sure how Obama can woo working class whites for many of the reasons I laid out above. I think these voters are for the most part low information voters and therefore can be further subdivided into two categories. First, the aforementioned racists. The only information necessary for these voters to make up their minds is the color of the skin of the candidate. That is it. Obama will never win these voters. The second group of low information voters would be non-racist ones. This group of Clinton voters voted for her based off her name recognition alone. They didn't really every get to know Obama or care about him. They heard the name Clinton, and that was all they needed to make a decision on how to vote. These voters can become Obama voters after they get to know Obama more and more. So these voters should definitely be targeted for wooing, but this can be done in the manner of a normal political campaign.
Moving on to women, I don't know what can be done here. I am guessing that the numbers of women who are going to only vote for Hillary is pretty low. Basically, the core of her support, women over 65 doesn't form that large of a voting bloc in the US. The 2007 population estimate says there are approximately 22 million women over the age of 65. Assuming they break 60/40 for the Democratic party with no independents, that means that around 13.2 million of them are Democrats. This isn't a constituency to be sneezed at in an election where the Democrat might get 65 million total votes. In such a case, those 13.2 million voters would be almost 20 percent of the Democratic total. Very obviously this is an necessary constituency for Obama to woo, but there are several questions that are unanswered here. First, how many of these voters are Clinton and Clinton only voters? Probably not very many. Second, of those in this group who have qualms about Obama, what can he do in a practical manner, to address their concerns about his candidacy? I would assume there is very little he can do beyond continuing to wage an aggressive campaign against John McCain drawing the appropriate contrasts between McCain and himself on the issues important to these voters.
The last group to discuss is the fabled Reagan Democrats. They are not really fabled, they do exist, but there are two problems with them for this election. 1) They are old, and not that much of the population anymore; and 2) Most of them are Republicans now. A person who was 18 in 1980 would now be 46. This means that every Reagan Democrat out there is at a minimum 46 years of age. This is a relatively advanced age. I realize that young keeps getting defined upward, but 46 is not very young. The second issue is that these voters are Republicans. If they voted for Reagan twice, H.W. once, if not twice, Dole and all the rest of the Republicans for president and/or Congress. They are Republicans now, regardless of whatever party they nominally identify with. This is not a constituency that really exists in a meaningful way for the Democratic party. Efforts to woo them are a lost cause, and surely Ms. Minnesota and D.C., Geraldine Ferraro, is not the best person to consult as to what is the best way to approach this constituency.
I don't have a conclusion.
However, other commentators, one's with actual platforms from which to broadcast their ideas have been discussing the need for Obama to woo Clinton's supporters. These calls generally focus on the two to three groups that Obama must win over. These groups are women, working class whites, and Reagan Democrats.
Before discussing these groups, it should be pointed out that any call for Obama to woo Clinton voters must also explain why those voters didn't vote for Obama in the first place. Given the minuscule policy differences between Obama and Clinton, Obama's wooing shouldn't be too difficult as there should be no major hang up for Clinton voters to switch their support. However, as was well documented in the final primaries, a portion of Clinton supporters appeared to be voting for her because she was white. It seems to me that there isn't much Obama can do to woo these voters. Their support is just lost. Now, in this election, that shouldn't be as big of a deal as it has been in past elections, as many of those who would never vote for a black man are already Republicans, who wouldn't vote for a Democrat of any skin color. The main take away point here is that Obama cannot woo the voters who voted against him because he was black, and the explanation of voter motive is necessary to any discussion of the efficacy of Obama's wooing efforts. This point is dodged by many of those calling for a woo-athon by Obama as they do not want to confront the ugly reality of Hillary's support as the race progressed to its conclusion.
Now, returning to the three groups. I am not sure how Obama can woo working class whites for many of the reasons I laid out above. I think these voters are for the most part low information voters and therefore can be further subdivided into two categories. First, the aforementioned racists. The only information necessary for these voters to make up their minds is the color of the skin of the candidate. That is it. Obama will never win these voters. The second group of low information voters would be non-racist ones. This group of Clinton voters voted for her based off her name recognition alone. They didn't really every get to know Obama or care about him. They heard the name Clinton, and that was all they needed to make a decision on how to vote. These voters can become Obama voters after they get to know Obama more and more. So these voters should definitely be targeted for wooing, but this can be done in the manner of a normal political campaign.
Moving on to women, I don't know what can be done here. I am guessing that the numbers of women who are going to only vote for Hillary is pretty low. Basically, the core of her support, women over 65 doesn't form that large of a voting bloc in the US. The 2007 population estimate says there are approximately 22 million women over the age of 65. Assuming they break 60/40 for the Democratic party with no independents, that means that around 13.2 million of them are Democrats. This isn't a constituency to be sneezed at in an election where the Democrat might get 65 million total votes. In such a case, those 13.2 million voters would be almost 20 percent of the Democratic total. Very obviously this is an necessary constituency for Obama to woo, but there are several questions that are unanswered here. First, how many of these voters are Clinton and Clinton only voters? Probably not very many. Second, of those in this group who have qualms about Obama, what can he do in a practical manner, to address their concerns about his candidacy? I would assume there is very little he can do beyond continuing to wage an aggressive campaign against John McCain drawing the appropriate contrasts between McCain and himself on the issues important to these voters.
The last group to discuss is the fabled Reagan Democrats. They are not really fabled, they do exist, but there are two problems with them for this election. 1) They are old, and not that much of the population anymore; and 2) Most of them are Republicans now. A person who was 18 in 1980 would now be 46. This means that every Reagan Democrat out there is at a minimum 46 years of age. This is a relatively advanced age. I realize that young keeps getting defined upward, but 46 is not very young. The second issue is that these voters are Republicans. If they voted for Reagan twice, H.W. once, if not twice, Dole and all the rest of the Republicans for president and/or Congress. They are Republicans now, regardless of whatever party they nominally identify with. This is not a constituency that really exists in a meaningful way for the Democratic party. Efforts to woo them are a lost cause, and surely Ms. Minnesota and D.C., Geraldine Ferraro, is not the best person to consult as to what is the best way to approach this constituency.
I don't have a conclusion.
Sunday, June 01, 2008
The Party or the Person
Now that the Rules and Bylaws Committee has ruled, there is talk that Clinton supporters are still angry. The question becomes, regardless of what the Clinton campaign does, whether those supporters are going to support the person or the party. I realize that Clinton wants to hold herself out as the last hope to her supporters to use that position as leverage against the rest of the Democratic party. Whether her supporters understand their role in this drama is another question. If they choose to remain loyal to Hillary, and only Hillary, they are choosing the person over the party, and ultimately should be held responsible for their lack of commitment to the ideals of the center left as embodied by the Democratic party. Obviously, there is no mechanism for holding them responsible beyond shaming and guilting them into realizing that they really don't care about universal health care or ending the war in Iraq or the political makeup of the Supreme Court becuase they refuse to accept the outcome of the process. Such absolutist thinking is detrimental to the Party and ultimately to the country.
For these reasons, I think that on a micropolitical level, by which I mean interactions between Obama supporters and Clinton supporters on an interpersonal level, Clinton supporters choice of the person over the Party, will collapse. It is untenable in a face to face interaction for someone to maintain loyalty to Clinton, whom they have likely never met, over the ideals which both Clinton, Obama, and as previously mentioned, the Democratic Party, represent. I would probably be writing the same about Obama supporters if the results had turned out the other way, and by results I mean the votes.
For these reasons, I think that on a micropolitical level, by which I mean interactions between Obama supporters and Clinton supporters on an interpersonal level, Clinton supporters choice of the person over the Party, will collapse. It is untenable in a face to face interaction for someone to maintain loyalty to Clinton, whom they have likely never met, over the ideals which both Clinton, Obama, and as previously mentioned, the Democratic Party, represent. I would probably be writing the same about Obama supporters if the results had turned out the other way, and by results I mean the votes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)