Halperin Makes a List
Steven L. Taylor
·
Saturday, March 22, 2008
·
2 comments
And it is a pretty good one: Painful Things Hillary Clinton Knows — Or Should Know
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a Professor of Political Science and a College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored
A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog).
Follow Steven on
Twitter
While the list is for the most part true, there is a corollary.
Does anyone expect Obama to get the nomination without superdelegates? If not, then why would it be “more legitimate” for Obama to get more delegates in caucuses (which are decidedly not one man-one vote affairs) than for Clinton to get more of the superdelegates? It’s clear that she is going to have to make up more ground, but does that really make her illegitimate somehow?
As noted in the list, the press has been overly kind to Obama. But that is not a reason to support Obama. In fact, it should be a reason to question his electability. The MSM will be in the tank for the democrat, whichever wins. But not subjecting Obama to hard scrutiny now just means the stories and issues have more legs in the general election. Look at the Wright issue.
Of those who knew about the controversy and the speech, we asked, “Taking all this into account, are you more or less likely to support Obama for president?â€
Less likely (52%)
More likely (19%)
About the same (27%)
No opinion (2%)
For blacks, 56% said they were less likely to vote for Obama. For Democrats, 48% said they were less likely to vote for him. For Independents, 56% said they were less likely to vote for him. Obama is a uniter in making people less likely to vote for him as they find out more about him. But that is the danger of a blank slate candidate who seeks the nomination with about 4 years on the national stage. People can project what they want on to a blank slate. But as the slate gets filled in, that sort of wishful projection doesn’t work.
This is just one issue that Obama has been hit with. But a majority find it less likely that they will support him because of it. Obama has a lot of other issues to come out (e.g. gun control). They may be positives for the democratic convention, but they can hurt him in the purple states.
And I don’t ever want to hear another democrat complain about Florida in 2000. Michigan and Florida show that all the hoopla was political posturing, not true ideals. In Florida 2000, the state law had a procedure for certifying the results that was followed. But the democrats ignored the rules and kept the country hanging in the balance. Now, depending which candidate they prefer, they want to enforce the democratic party rules or throw them out. But both positions are about political expediency, not principle (I apologize to both democrats who gracefully accepted the Florida 2000 vote when it was certified and want to enforce the loss of delegates in 2008).
I’m on the outside looking in on the nomination fight. I don’t want either candidate to win. But that does give me a certain dispassion that allows me to look at what is happening objectively.
1. Neither is going to win the nomination without superdelegates.
2. Both are saying what they think people want to hear, not what they really feel.
3. Both are promising government largess and higher taxes, with the largess going to their special interests and the taxes going on someone else. Both are lying in what they will deliver and who will bear the tax burden.
4. Both are ignoring important issues like Medicare and social security funding. Neither has presented plans that really address the problems.
5. The MSM press will be in the tank for either of them.
6. Neither can win the nomination without a bloody convention battle.
7. The super delegate battle is not over. Whatever position a super delegate has can be changed by next August. Obama has been damaged in a way that may keep him from getting enough supper delegates. And for those who do not understand that super delegate war will come down to a bidding war with prodigious amounts of pork and perks as ammunition, I have a bridge to sell you.
8. Neither has an ego small enough to accept the other on the ticket, in either direction.
Because caucuses are still representational. You don’t get to be a caucus delegate without some other people selecting to you represent them for that purpose. Not all super delegates currently hold an elected position, and none of those that do were elected for the purpose of selecting a Presidential candidate.
Is that really the way the question was worded? You can’t ask the question in “more or less likely” order, then present the choices in “less or more likely” order. The order should be rotated evenly, but you have to make sure and present the option list in the same order as they are presented in the question text. Also, what is the breakout of this question for those were likely to vote for Obama before the controversy/speech? If Obama lost support from Hillary supporters because of the controversy, what does that matter in the primary?