Barack Obama seems to have a knack for caucuses. His first win was in the Iowa caucuses, and he’s only seen success in them since then. On SDTT (Super Duper Tsunami Tuesday), he went six for six on the caucuses held that day, and today’s results echo that momentum. Hillary has been known to downplay the caucus system, saying they reflect the activists, not the general public.
Caucuses are public gatherings where people wear their political affiliation on their sleeve. They’re also often a long process, held during the day, which is why Hillary claims they inaccurately reflect the desires of the democratic populous. The demographic that is claimed to be behind her, blue-collar workers, are supposedly too busy at work to stop by and announce their vote. What Hillary is neglecting to mention is that the caucuses often go on all day and that a voter doesn’t need to stick around the whole time. What she also leaves out is that another one of her supposedly supportive demographics are older voters, particularly women, who one would think would have plenty of time to hang around a caucus and show their support.
Even if Hillary was correct in chalking up caucuses to just the activists, isn’t that a big part of what the primaries are about? It seems like everyone is talking about how McCain can’t rally the conservative base and how that’s going to cause issues in November. Enough can’t be said about how important the 20-30% of reported ‘hardcores’ who are showing their distaste for McCain by either voting for Huckabee or not voting at all. So wouldn’t it seem that the primaries is mainly about getting the activists excited and motivated. Isn’t the desire to find a frontrunner early on simply to allow time for the non-activists and non-hardcores to coalesce around the nominee before he or she has to face the onslaught they are about to receive from the opposing party?
To sum it up: Just because public nature of the caucus system tends to bring out the activists doesn’t invalidate them, nor does it mean we’re not getting a proper pulse of the state. They may be a bit more confusing and takes more time than simple primaries, but there are only 17 caucuses out of the 53 races (including DC and the territories), and after next Tuesday, the rest are primaries. Hillary, if anything, should be concerned as to why she’s not able to bring out activists and wonder just who is going to fight for her if she does manage to get the nomination. At least Barack has droves of passionate people ready to get out there and do what it takes to win votes.
Showing posts with label primaries. Show all posts
Showing posts with label primaries. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Superdelegates give Hillary the lead on Super Tuesday.
As the delegate count from SDTT (Super Duper Tsunami Tuesday) continues to settle, the democrats are realizing that they could face a particularly touchy subject come the Democratic National Convention. Ever since Al Gore took the popular vote but lost due to a technicality back in 2000, the Democratic Party has been acutely aware of how painful it is to be told that, when put to the test, each vote actually doesn’t matter.
What the party could face on August 28 in Denver, Colorado is an internal version of that struggle that could potentially disillusion massive numbers of voters. Right now, Barack is only down by .5% (7,347,971 v 7,294,851) according to the vote count, however he’s down 5% (1045 v 960) according to the delegate count. This goes back to the superdelegates. Although the states split their democratic delegates proportionate to the voters demands, the superdelegates can do what they see fit. Since Hillary has been wooing them for quite some time, they’ve found it appropriate to support her.
Many consider unfair and ridiculous that the democratic party even has superdelegates, but it's certainly not without rationale. The Republican primaries often send all of a states’ delegates to the candidate who can achieve a simple majority. This often creates a large enough disparity to anoint a clear winner of the party nomination, even if the momentum that high delegate counts can create isn’t always fair.
The democrats, to avoid this issue, reflect voter patterns when they distribute delegates, but they also don’t want a completely split party when the convention arrives. Part of the primaries is to find the best candidate, the other part is to galvanize support around them. The superdelegates are supposed to heighten that momentum, and in the end shouldn’t end up making that much a difference. If, however, the popular vote says that Obama should be their candidate, but the superdelegates swing the nomination over to Hillary solely based on their desires, then I could see some serious tension arising.
To sum it up: I’ve said before that if it comes to a 50/50 split on the nomination, I’d rather have people well connected to politics, such as the superdelegates, strike the final blow on the nomination. Personally, I wouldn’t have a problem if the superdelegates are the one to tip the balance, better them than a bunch of people who are making up their minds a day or two before the election based on a handful of commercials. The problem is that we would make people apathetic at the party level. It’s one thing to be apathetic about politics and have that belief confirmed at the national level. It’s wholly another to be excited enough about politics to vote in the primaries, only to have your own party deny the wishes of their constituents and nominate who they want.
Here's my favorite part about these delegate counts, however. "The AP tracks the delegate races by projecting the number of national convention delegates won by candidates in each presidential primary or caucus, based on state and national party rules, and by interviewing unpledged delegates to obtain their preferences." That means that Hillary's 85 delegate lead is mainly imagined. Their not-so-super delegate count is almost equal. To avoid pandemonium, the superdelegates are likely to simply vote for the candidate in the lead at the convention. The current lead is almost entirely speculation.
What the party could face on August 28 in Denver, Colorado is an internal version of that struggle that could potentially disillusion massive numbers of voters. Right now, Barack is only down by .5% (7,347,971 v 7,294,851) according to the vote count, however he’s down 5% (1045 v 960) according to the delegate count. This goes back to the superdelegates. Although the states split their democratic delegates proportionate to the voters demands, the superdelegates can do what they see fit. Since Hillary has been wooing them for quite some time, they’ve found it appropriate to support her.
Many consider unfair and ridiculous that the democratic party even has superdelegates, but it's certainly not without rationale. The Republican primaries often send all of a states’ delegates to the candidate who can achieve a simple majority. This often creates a large enough disparity to anoint a clear winner of the party nomination, even if the momentum that high delegate counts can create isn’t always fair.
The democrats, to avoid this issue, reflect voter patterns when they distribute delegates, but they also don’t want a completely split party when the convention arrives. Part of the primaries is to find the best candidate, the other part is to galvanize support around them. The superdelegates are supposed to heighten that momentum, and in the end shouldn’t end up making that much a difference. If, however, the popular vote says that Obama should be their candidate, but the superdelegates swing the nomination over to Hillary solely based on their desires, then I could see some serious tension arising.
To sum it up: I’ve said before that if it comes to a 50/50 split on the nomination, I’d rather have people well connected to politics, such as the superdelegates, strike the final blow on the nomination. Personally, I wouldn’t have a problem if the superdelegates are the one to tip the balance, better them than a bunch of people who are making up their minds a day or two before the election based on a handful of commercials. The problem is that we would make people apathetic at the party level. It’s one thing to be apathetic about politics and have that belief confirmed at the national level. It’s wholly another to be excited enough about politics to vote in the primaries, only to have your own party deny the wishes of their constituents and nominate who they want.
Here's my favorite part about these delegate counts, however. "The AP tracks the delegate races by projecting the number of national convention delegates won by candidates in each presidential primary or caucus, based on state and national party rules, and by interviewing unpledged delegates to obtain their preferences." That means that Hillary's 85 delegate lead is mainly imagined. Their not-so-super delegate count is almost equal. To avoid pandemonium, the superdelegates are likely to simply vote for the candidate in the lead at the convention. The current lead is almost entirely speculation.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
McCain Wins Delegates Florida, Hillary Wins Scorn.
John McCain has cinched Florida, and thereby batted away the belief that he couldn't capture the hardcore republicans that are common in the state. Guiliani had put all of his chips in this strategic basket, but the bottom of that basket fell through when the republican party found itself in need of someone who could not only lead the party in an acceptable direction, but also had a solid chance at beating the likely opposing candidate, a feat that McCain seems capable of but Guiliani stands a strong chance of failing. Mitt Romney pulled in a close second to McCain, but second may as well be last in Florida since the winner gets all 57 delegates, the most delegates awarded to a republican by any of the contests so far.
Hillary Clinton was also the clear winner in Tuesdays round of voting, however it means much less to her since Barack Obama is still coming off of a strategically crucial win in South Carolina, and since Florida has no delegates to give away. The DNC decision was made when Florida tried to move up their primary to January 29th, a week before the earliest day allowed by the rules: February 5th. Michigan tried the same tactic and was awarded the same punishment, impatience resulting in irrelevance.
The date and the 4 states that skirt the rule (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and S. Carolina) are arbitrary, however a limit must be placed somewhere or else the primaries will simply move farther and farther back in an effort for states to increase their importance in providing pivotal momentum for candidates. Although the candidates signed an agreement last fall promising not to campaign in the states and to stand by the DNC's move to relieve the states of their delegates, Hillary is now challenging the decision, raising concern of her motives.
To sum it up: McCain has the back of the republican party now, and it's likely to carry him through Tsunami Tuesday. It's a good thing for his party, too, since RealClearPolitics has shown him to be the only republican candidate who could handle his own in the ring with either Barack or Hillary. Hillary, on the other hand, needs to watch herself. She's leading the pack as far as delegates go, but she's also riding a fine line with her political game-playing and ranting husband. Barack is also riding high off the fumes of a multi-Kennedy endorsement and is going to be gunning for as many delegates as possible in the chance that it's going to come down to John Edwards trading his delegates like baseball cards in return for political favors.
Hillary Clinton was also the clear winner in Tuesdays round of voting, however it means much less to her since Barack Obama is still coming off of a strategically crucial win in South Carolina, and since Florida has no delegates to give away. The DNC decision was made when Florida tried to move up their primary to January 29th, a week before the earliest day allowed by the rules: February 5th. Michigan tried the same tactic and was awarded the same punishment, impatience resulting in irrelevance.
The date and the 4 states that skirt the rule (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and S. Carolina) are arbitrary, however a limit must be placed somewhere or else the primaries will simply move farther and farther back in an effort for states to increase their importance in providing pivotal momentum for candidates. Although the candidates signed an agreement last fall promising not to campaign in the states and to stand by the DNC's move to relieve the states of their delegates, Hillary is now challenging the decision, raising concern of her motives.
To sum it up: McCain has the back of the republican party now, and it's likely to carry him through Tsunami Tuesday. It's a good thing for his party, too, since RealClearPolitics has shown him to be the only republican candidate who could handle his own in the ring with either Barack or Hillary. Hillary, on the other hand, needs to watch herself. She's leading the pack as far as delegates go, but she's also riding a fine line with her political game-playing and ranting husband. Barack is also riding high off the fumes of a multi-Kennedy endorsement and is going to be gunning for as many delegates as possible in the chance that it's going to come down to John Edwards trading his delegates like baseball cards in return for political favors.
Parsing through the votes.
When most people say their votes don’t matter, they’re referring to the massive sea of votes that are counted, out of which theirs was but a mere drop. However, the cutthroat tactics of Karl Rove in the 2000 and 2004 election showed that some of our votes do matter very much. In 2000 Florida(and Colorado if you remember what Nader did) got the honor of mattering most, and in 2004 that dilapidated crown went to Ohio
These emphases on each little vote, though, made our collective stomachs turn a bit since it seemed like the voting field had been minced and parsed until the weakest points were exposed, and then the more cunning candidate would harp on it until he got the needed amount of votes plus one.
This tactic isn’t entirely new, secure what you can, don’t worry about what you can’t, and then pander to the people in the middle. This election year is likely to see similar tactics, but now it has moved into the primaries with frightening vivacity. The republicans showed that they could do it best earlier this decade, but the democrats have apparently taken a page from their playbook, too.
Clinton
I personally don’t imagine Mark in the same way I do Rove, standing over a map of the country with a deep red marker, crossing off the loyalists that are in their pocket and drawing targets on the poor saps who he’s going to try to sway. However, according to his outlook, massive amount of statistical analysis and a bit of creativity not only highlight the areas subject to change, but how one could go about changing them.
To sum it up: This sort of hyper-analysis is only possible with the massive amounts of information we are now able to collect, and modern supercomputers to dissect it and make it meaningful. The broad access to incomprehensible amounts of information is supposed to disseminate knowledge and level the playing field. In this case, however, it’s allowing for the creation of corporate and political strategies that make us resemble pawns on a chessboard more than ever. I suspect that we’re going to get a whole new meaning to the phrase “each vote matters” in this election. Sure each vote matters, but some votes matter more than others.
These emphases on each little vote, though, made our collective stomachs turn a bit since it seemed like the voting field had been minced and parsed until the weakest points were exposed, and then the more cunning candidate would harp on it until he got the needed amount of votes plus one.
This tactic isn’t entirely new, secure what you can, don’t worry about what you can’t, and then pander to the people in the middle. This election year is likely to see similar tactics, but now it has moved into the primaries with frightening vivacity. The republicans showed that they could do it best earlier this decade, but the democrats have apparently taken a page from their playbook, too.
Clinton
I personally don’t imagine Mark in the same way I do Rove, standing over a map of the country with a deep red marker, crossing off the loyalists that are in their pocket and drawing targets on the poor saps who he’s going to try to sway. However, according to his outlook, massive amount of statistical analysis and a bit of creativity not only highlight the areas subject to change, but how one could go about changing them.
To sum it up: This sort of hyper-analysis is only possible with the massive amounts of information we are now able to collect, and modern supercomputers to dissect it and make it meaningful. The broad access to incomprehensible amounts of information is supposed to disseminate knowledge and level the playing field. In this case, however, it’s allowing for the creation of corporate and political strategies that make us resemble pawns on a chessboard more than ever. I suspect that we’re going to get a whole new meaning to the phrase “each vote matters” in this election. Sure each vote matters, but some votes matter more than others.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Edwards imagines power in his role as Kingmaker
Article after article has tapped a sword on Edwards' shoulders and dubbed him kingmaker, apparently because there is little hope on deciding who will actually be the king. Polls still show Hillary to be well ahead of Obama, but Super Tuesday is a bit of a black box out of which anything could emerge. Hillary shows prominence in the major states of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and California, however the Democratic primaries delegate delegates in a fair and orderly manner, each candidate receiving a number proportional to their winning. This means that the frontrunners will both be gunning for the 2025 delegates necessary to be crowned presidential candidate.
Where does John come in? Well, there are 4,049 delegates to pass around, and Edwards is expected to collect about 10 to 15% of them, or 400-600. This leaves approximately 3,500, which means that one of the two leaders needs to stomp the other by nearly 20% in order to win. The gap between Hillary and Obama is only 10% or so by most polls, which puts John in quite an interesting situation.
Sure, he could step back from the dogfight and do whatever it is candidates do with any unused money they raised. However, a candidate gets to spend their earned delegates how they want once they leave the ring, so why not stick it out and exert the power that he doesn't have a chance at earning as president? Moreover, if he gets to choose, it's almost as good as winning since he's basically securing a spot as vice-president, and this time to someone who could actually win.
To sum it up: The media is somewhat nobly trying to avoid being wrong after Super Tuesday and is refraining from giving a definite answer as to who will walk away with the blessing of the left. It's mainly the fault of the registered voters who have refused to fall in line and stick behind an obviously not-worst choice. Therefore, they are doing the next best thing to calling the race: calling who will call the race. John's making a brilliant move here, but the media is making the equivalent move in their own little game.
Where does John come in? Well, there are 4,049 delegates to pass around, and Edwards is expected to collect about 10 to 15% of them, or 400-600. This leaves approximately 3,500, which means that one of the two leaders needs to stomp the other by nearly 20% in order to win. The gap between Hillary and Obama is only 10% or so by most polls, which puts John in quite an interesting situation.
Sure, he could step back from the dogfight and do whatever it is candidates do with any unused money they raised. However, a candidate gets to spend their earned delegates how they want once they leave the ring, so why not stick it out and exert the power that he doesn't have a chance at earning as president? Moreover, if he gets to choose, it's almost as good as winning since he's basically securing a spot as vice-president, and this time to someone who could actually win.
To sum it up: The media is somewhat nobly trying to avoid being wrong after Super Tuesday and is refraining from giving a definite answer as to who will walk away with the blessing of the left. It's mainly the fault of the registered voters who have refused to fall in line and stick behind an obviously not-worst choice. Therefore, they are doing the next best thing to calling the race: calling who will call the race. John's making a brilliant move here, but the media is making the equivalent move in their own little game.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
The question of Electability
Electability is always a strong consideration in the primaries. The French call the action 'vote utile,’ tactical voting or the useful vote. Don’t vote for the ideal candidate, vote for the candidate who can win. The notion is a little degrading, but wise nonetheless. If you compromise nothing and therefore gain nothing and your measly little protest counted for nothing, well, you may want to re-think your strategy.
To flesh out the strategy in a bit more detail, we aren’t just offering up the person who we think could win. Beyond that, we’re offering up the person who we think could win against the person that we believe the other side will nominate, i.e., the person they chose because they think that nominee could win against our chosen candidate. This presents difficulties since each possible match-up presents a different set of obstacles for either side.
The best defense, of course, would be a candidate that could beat anyone from the other side, but that’s a bit of wishful thinking. Next to that, we just need to deal with what information we have, and make educated guesses. I’m going to provide a few bullet points of information that will hopefully help clarify not who represents you the best, but who you think will have the best chance at representing you at all.
First, the polls. It’s been pointed out in an earlier post that both Hillary and Obama would lose to McCain if tomorrow were November 4th, even though Hillary is stomping Obama in the national democratic polls. However, Hillary creams Romney, the other likely republican choice, as does Barack. Beyond all of this, John Edwards is the only democrat who could beat McCain, but he sits last on the left-hand list.
Ok, enough of polls, let’s discuss the ought-to-be-irrelevant factors that no doubt will play a role here. There’s Obama’s race, McCain’s age, Clinton’s gender, and Romney’s religion. Obama also has an age issue, or rather a lack-of-age issue, which could come back to bite him, but many of the same people who would be considering the weight of the problem also considered it when Kennedy was running, so it could be overcome. In my opinion, not a single one of these should really be relevant when choosing your candidate. The religion issue comes closest to affecting how they will lead as president, but it’s doubtful that we’ll become ‘one nation, under Joseph Smith.'
Finally, there are the issues that matter, that is, the things these candidates have actually done in the past that could stifle their bid for presidency. Romney, besides being the farthest from the center, was by no means an indisputably excellent governor of Massachusetts, but his business acumen as a former CEO and his gift to America (or just Utah?) of saving the 2002 Winter Olympics could win a few hearts and a couple minds. McCain is undeniably a war hawk, but at least he knows what it’s all about and isn’t likely to make whimsical decisions based on bad evidence. He has been known for years as not necessarily a moderate, but someone who isn’t so ideological as to avoid crossing the isle, however he has been drifting farther to the right bank in previous years.
Obama, as everyone has pointed out at some point or another, is said to lack experience, but that claim is a specious one and unlikely to be a truly prohibitive factor due to his public service experience and golden oratory abilities. He’s also the only candidate on stage who didn’t vote for the war, and that could win serious points, unless, that is, you’re one of the Americans who do not believe that we should pull out so soon. Clinton, like McCain, has a strong history of policy, and an undeniable amount of influence in Washington, but she voted for the war and she brings a lot of baggage with her role in the Medicare makeover of 1993. She also highlights the issue of an autocracy since the history books would read Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton, (Clinton?). This issue borders on the irrelevant, but it’s certainly not a trend we should be condoning.
To sum it up: ‘Le vote utile’ in this election is not nearly as clear as it has been in previous ones, so I’m encouraging everyone on both sides to vote with their heart. We don’t get a lot of chances with so many honestly decent candidates asking for our support. Whether you personally like them or not, the four contenders left standing all bring something to the table and they’ll all put up a helluva fight. For that reason, screw the electability argument, vote for who you love.
To flesh out the strategy in a bit more detail, we aren’t just offering up the person who we think could win. Beyond that, we’re offering up the person who we think could win against the person that we believe the other side will nominate, i.e., the person they chose because they think that nominee could win against our chosen candidate. This presents difficulties since each possible match-up presents a different set of obstacles for either side.
The best defense, of course, would be a candidate that could beat anyone from the other side, but that’s a bit of wishful thinking. Next to that, we just need to deal with what information we have, and make educated guesses. I’m going to provide a few bullet points of information that will hopefully help clarify not who represents you the best, but who you think will have the best chance at representing you at all.
First, the polls. It’s been pointed out in an earlier post that both Hillary and Obama would lose to McCain if tomorrow were November 4th, even though Hillary is stomping Obama in the national democratic polls. However, Hillary creams Romney, the other likely republican choice, as does Barack. Beyond all of this, John Edwards is the only democrat who could beat McCain, but he sits last on the left-hand list.
Ok, enough of polls, let’s discuss the ought-to-be-irrelevant factors that no doubt will play a role here. There’s Obama’s race, McCain’s age, Clinton’s gender, and Romney’s religion. Obama also has an age issue, or rather a lack-of-age issue, which could come back to bite him, but many of the same people who would be considering the weight of the problem also considered it when Kennedy was running, so it could be overcome. In my opinion, not a single one of these should really be relevant when choosing your candidate. The religion issue comes closest to affecting how they will lead as president, but it’s doubtful that we’ll become ‘one nation, under Joseph Smith.'
Finally, there are the issues that matter, that is, the things these candidates have actually done in the past that could stifle their bid for presidency. Romney, besides being the farthest from the center, was by no means an indisputably excellent governor of Massachusetts, but his business acumen as a former CEO and his gift to America (or just Utah?) of saving the 2002 Winter Olympics could win a few hearts and a couple minds. McCain is undeniably a war hawk, but at least he knows what it’s all about and isn’t likely to make whimsical decisions based on bad evidence. He has been known for years as not necessarily a moderate, but someone who isn’t so ideological as to avoid crossing the isle, however he has been drifting farther to the right bank in previous years.
Obama, as everyone has pointed out at some point or another, is said to lack experience, but that claim is a specious one and unlikely to be a truly prohibitive factor due to his public service experience and golden oratory abilities. He’s also the only candidate on stage who didn’t vote for the war, and that could win serious points, unless, that is, you’re one of the Americans who do not believe that we should pull out so soon. Clinton, like McCain, has a strong history of policy, and an undeniable amount of influence in Washington, but she voted for the war and she brings a lot of baggage with her role in the Medicare makeover of 1993. She also highlights the issue of an autocracy since the history books would read Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton, (Clinton?). This issue borders on the irrelevant, but it’s certainly not a trend we should be condoning.
To sum it up: ‘Le vote utile’ in this election is not nearly as clear as it has been in previous ones, so I’m encouraging everyone on both sides to vote with their heart. We don’t get a lot of chances with so many honestly decent candidates asking for our support. Whether you personally like them or not, the four contenders left standing all bring something to the table and they’ll all put up a helluva fight. For that reason, screw the electability argument, vote for who you love.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Where do the candidates stand?
Not on actual positions, of course, but rather, where do they stand in rankings? How many delegates have the fierce competitors managed to win in sidewalk games of political marbles? We’ve heard about McCain surging ahead and Obama going neck and neck with Hillary, so where’s the proof in this pudding? Well, here we go:
Romney: 59
Huckabee: 40
McCain: 36
Total Of 1,191 Delegates Needed To Win
Clinton: 236
Obama: 136
Edwards: 50
Total Of 2,025 Delegates Needed To Win
If you think these numbers don’t reflect the pundit predictions and even if they did it’s way too early, then you would be right. I’ll grant that prior primaries have coughed up a clear front-runner long before Super Tuesday, but it’s not the case in this election, so just take a moment to savor the squirming journalists who have to come to grips with uncertainty.
Romney: 59
Huckabee: 40
McCain: 36
Total Of 1,191 Delegates Needed To Win
Clinton: 236
Obama: 136
Edwards: 50
Total Of 2,025 Delegates Needed To Win
If you think these numbers don’t reflect the pundit predictions and even if they did it’s way too early, then you would be right. I’ll grant that prior primaries have coughed up a clear front-runner long before Super Tuesday, but it’s not the case in this election, so just take a moment to savor the squirming journalists who have to come to grips with uncertainty.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
We promise to get the prediction right this time with Nevada, Trust us!
Oh, we've heard it before, and now we're hearing it again. With the bare minimum of polling and reporting precincts possible, Romney has been called to win Nevada and has already accepted the gracious outcome as fact. Why, I ask, do we feel compelled to know who 'won' before the results are in. No one likes a movie spoiler. No one likes the know-it-all who tries to give an answer before the question has been fully asked. Hell, I'll throw my book at a person who tries to give it's ending away.
This time, however, we're hearing it from the Associated Press. AP, you're such a respected and beloved source, why must you get into this? You were supposed to stand blandly aside, just giving us the facts, after they have transformed from prediction. It almost doesn't even matter if they are correct or not. The AP was calling the win with only a handful of the 1,789 precincts reporting and a few 'entrance poll' results (they couldn't even wait until the exited?). Is the temporary bump in readership really worth the possible humiliation and indignity that is risked? No one benefits from the early call, and I for one, prefer to watch the results as they develop.
If you would also like to watch for yourself how this state pans out, visit the Nevada GOP results live-monitoring page.
This time, however, we're hearing it from the Associated Press. AP, you're such a respected and beloved source, why must you get into this? You were supposed to stand blandly aside, just giving us the facts, after they have transformed from prediction. It almost doesn't even matter if they are correct or not. The AP was calling the win with only a handful of the 1,789 precincts reporting and a few 'entrance poll' results (they couldn't even wait until the exited?). Is the temporary bump in readership really worth the possible humiliation and indignity that is risked? No one benefits from the early call, and I for one, prefer to watch the results as they develop.
If you would also like to watch for yourself how this state pans out, visit the Nevada GOP results live-monitoring page.
What Does A Close Race Do For Democracy?
With no definitive leader coming into the Nevada and South Carolina primaries, it almost brings a tear to the eye of we lovers of democracy. Citizens are more mobilized than ever, and people are getting out there and rocking the vote. Many experts are saying that this race could not only go through Tsunami Tuesday (formerly known as Super Duper Tuesday {formerly known as Tuesday}), but even all the way up to the last states to cast their vote (this could be your year, South Dakota!). These displays of passion and strongly held opinions are strengthening our decrepit system, awakening the apathetic, and providing meaning and legitimacy for the candidate who prevails.
On the other hand, do close races not dilute the effects of democracy? Since we have a winner takes all system, would we not prefer a leader who is able to rouse the vast majority of our spirits? The national elections have been decided by a few percentage points on either side for years now. 50.7% of voters stated their collective desire, and so their choice gets to rule over the remaining 49.3%. There are more fluctuating probabilities in a coin toss competition. I would actually be willing to bet that if everyone who voted also flipped a coin and wrote down that result on their ballot, the results of Senator Heads versus ex-Governor Tails would be more decisive.
Taken back a level, if we have two primary candidates, and one of them takes the sponsored candidacy by getting 51% of the registered democratic votes, and then goes on to take the national vote by 51%, then we've elected the first choice of no more than 25% of our people. Add on to that the fact that only about 50-60% of potential voters actually will roll out of bed and make it to the polls, we're left with a commander in chief who was preferred by about 15% of the population.
What's nice about the primaries is that it's not terribly likely to happen in that way. Since factors like momentum and a perceived ability to win it all play such a big role, it's expected that the final choice will have pulled away from their next closest competitor by a respectable margin. This is made even more likely when you consider the role of SuperDelegates. These mere mortals endowed with demi-god powers are a group of people whose opinion is counted as the equivalent of hundreds of people. They are given this awesome power by being heavily involved with the election process well before it got cool, and therefore they are believed to know what the candidates were like before they got all famous and sold out. Each state has a certain number of delegates to hand out based on population (rather than turnout), but the vote of each of these SuperDelegates is equivalent to one of the delegates. Since they are presumably less swayed by the ever-changing political winds when the primaries fan is on high, their steadfast vote based on sound evidence will often nudge one candidate to their cushioned victory.
To sum it up: The current symmetrical divide in this country that rears it's head once every four years seems to lead to a result that, were it a poll, would be considered statistically insignificant. We have figured out a way in our primaries to lessen the chance of having to blindfold ourselves and pin a tail on one of the donkeys, so how can we apply this lesson to the national election? After all, almost every state considers the number the delegates and SuperDelegates (it can differ for republican and democratic primaries) so why not apply this method to the national election?
Having a national pool of 'trusted experts' who could have a heavy say in the result of a national election may sound like a plea for corruption, however, if we choose respected community leaders, elected officials, and intellectual giants, then we might be able to actually do something good with this. They wouldn't be in charge of the entire vote, but when there is a statistical tie, wouldn't we prefer to have the final push for a solresult be decided by people who know what they are talking about? Too many of us admit that we aren't fully educated about all or even our preferred candidate, so why not leave the tie-breaker to the people who make it their job to know what these people are about? Let's make a deal, if we all shout it out and still can't come up with something better than 50/50, we'll call the revered professors, the respected journalists, and the people who know a thing or two about these people on the stage, into the room and let their votes weigh a little heavier. If it's still a near-even split, then it won't matter which one we choose so we might as well choose the one who got a little more rather than a little less.
On the other hand, do close races not dilute the effects of democracy? Since we have a winner takes all system, would we not prefer a leader who is able to rouse the vast majority of our spirits? The national elections have been decided by a few percentage points on either side for years now. 50.7% of voters stated their collective desire, and so their choice gets to rule over the remaining 49.3%. There are more fluctuating probabilities in a coin toss competition. I would actually be willing to bet that if everyone who voted also flipped a coin and wrote down that result on their ballot, the results of Senator Heads versus ex-Governor Tails would be more decisive.
Taken back a level, if we have two primary candidates, and one of them takes the sponsored candidacy by getting 51% of the registered democratic votes, and then goes on to take the national vote by 51%, then we've elected the first choice of no more than 25% of our people. Add on to that the fact that only about 50-60% of potential voters actually will roll out of bed and make it to the polls, we're left with a commander in chief who was preferred by about 15% of the population.
What's nice about the primaries is that it's not terribly likely to happen in that way. Since factors like momentum and a perceived ability to win it all play such a big role, it's expected that the final choice will have pulled away from their next closest competitor by a respectable margin. This is made even more likely when you consider the role of SuperDelegates. These mere mortals endowed with demi-god powers are a group of people whose opinion is counted as the equivalent of hundreds of people. They are given this awesome power by being heavily involved with the election process well before it got cool, and therefore they are believed to know what the candidates were like before they got all famous and sold out. Each state has a certain number of delegates to hand out based on population (rather than turnout), but the vote of each of these SuperDelegates is equivalent to one of the delegates. Since they are presumably less swayed by the ever-changing political winds when the primaries fan is on high, their steadfast vote based on sound evidence will often nudge one candidate to their cushioned victory.
To sum it up: The current symmetrical divide in this country that rears it's head once every four years seems to lead to a result that, were it a poll, would be considered statistically insignificant. We have figured out a way in our primaries to lessen the chance of having to blindfold ourselves and pin a tail on one of the donkeys, so how can we apply this lesson to the national election? After all, almost every state considers the number the delegates and SuperDelegates (it can differ for republican and democratic primaries) so why not apply this method to the national election?
Having a national pool of 'trusted experts' who could have a heavy say in the result of a national election may sound like a plea for corruption, however, if we choose respected community leaders, elected officials, and intellectual giants, then we might be able to actually do something good with this. They wouldn't be in charge of the entire vote, but when there is a statistical tie, wouldn't we prefer to have the final push for a solresult be decided by people who know what they are talking about? Too many of us admit that we aren't fully educated about all or even our preferred candidate, so why not leave the tie-breaker to the people who make it their job to know what these people are about? Let's make a deal, if we all shout it out and still can't come up with something better than 50/50, we'll call the revered professors, the respected journalists, and the people who know a thing or two about these people on the stage, into the room and let their votes weigh a little heavier. If it's still a near-even split, then it won't matter which one we choose so we might as well choose the one who got a little more rather than a little less.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
It's almost over?
In order to maintain some perspective on this primary race, it is worthwhile to note where we are actually standing as we come into South Carolina.
First, we’ve only completed two states that matter for each side (Republicans were more concerned about New Hampshire and Michigan than Iowa, Democrats about Iowa and New Hampshire over Michigan), three states that the media has cared about (combine above list), and four states total to have voted (Wyoming, we hardly knew ye).
And yet, out of all of that activity, after waiting all this time, we still don’t have a clear front-runner. Four states that clearly are the lifeblood of all 300,000,000 of us have not been able to give a resounding answer to who the rest of us should fall in line and vote for.
"This the definition of a hard-fought race," pollster John Zogby said.
In comparison to an easy-fought race, which I presume would be something like an incumbent waiting to be re-elected, this three way tie for the dems and four way tie for the ‘pubs is like the race to the World Series: politician edition. Every news outlet has been burned at least once this election, if not multiple times, and yet they keep trying to convince us that it’s okay if they put their hand on the stove because it’s no longer hot. And we allow them, even believe that it’s cooled down a little bit. The public gets a sick pleasure from the media being dead wrong in their evaluations and predictions, we feel righteous in our indignation over their audacity. We assume that they are right but want them to be wrong.
I will grant them that South Carolina will be an important state on either side, but they want to coat each step with a layer of finality. If they can’t predict which politician will jump ahead, they’ll try picking which state is the final nail in the coffin. That way, they can look back and say, “see, we knew it all along.” With arguments full of neglected holes and statistics riddled with mathematical errors, they convince us that they know just what’s going on. Apparently, the last five primary decisions in South Carolina have resulted in a winner who just so happened to be the nation’s choice as well. However, looking at the story behind each of those decisions reveals that it started with Regan and each subsequent candidate has been some sort of mini- or quasi-Regan. Even if five calls in a row meant that South Carolina had some sort of mystical predictive power that allows them to foreshadow the Republican candidate for president, it apparently rubs off by the time they vote for the actual president.
To sum it up: What are we actually asking for from the media? Do we want this play by play of a large scale game of chinese checkers, or do we really want to know and pin down what these candidates stand for based on their voting history and what they have said in the past. Thank god for the Associated Press, if nothing else, for really digging into our candidates records. You know you’re reading from a good source when their comment on the status of the race so far is:
THE DEMOCRATS: The top Democratic candidates — Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards — campaign in Nevada. Obama heads later in the day to an economic roundtable in Van Nuys, Calif.
THE REPUBLICANS: Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, John McCain and Fred Thompson campaign in South Carolina. Rudy Giuliani campaigns in Florida.
First, we’ve only completed two states that matter for each side (Republicans were more concerned about New Hampshire and Michigan than Iowa, Democrats about Iowa and New Hampshire over Michigan), three states that the media has cared about (combine above list), and four states total to have voted (Wyoming, we hardly knew ye).
And yet, out of all of that activity, after waiting all this time, we still don’t have a clear front-runner. Four states that clearly are the lifeblood of all 300,000,000 of us have not been able to give a resounding answer to who the rest of us should fall in line and vote for.
"This the definition of a hard-fought race," pollster John Zogby said.
In comparison to an easy-fought race, which I presume would be something like an incumbent waiting to be re-elected, this three way tie for the dems and four way tie for the ‘pubs is like the race to the World Series: politician edition. Every news outlet has been burned at least once this election, if not multiple times, and yet they keep trying to convince us that it’s okay if they put their hand on the stove because it’s no longer hot. And we allow them, even believe that it’s cooled down a little bit. The public gets a sick pleasure from the media being dead wrong in their evaluations and predictions, we feel righteous in our indignation over their audacity. We assume that they are right but want them to be wrong.
I will grant them that South Carolina will be an important state on either side, but they want to coat each step with a layer of finality. If they can’t predict which politician will jump ahead, they’ll try picking which state is the final nail in the coffin. That way, they can look back and say, “see, we knew it all along.” With arguments full of neglected holes and statistics riddled with mathematical errors, they convince us that they know just what’s going on. Apparently, the last five primary decisions in South Carolina have resulted in a winner who just so happened to be the nation’s choice as well. However, looking at the story behind each of those decisions reveals that it started with Regan and each subsequent candidate has been some sort of mini- or quasi-Regan. Even if five calls in a row meant that South Carolina had some sort of mystical predictive power that allows them to foreshadow the Republican candidate for president, it apparently rubs off by the time they vote for the actual president.
To sum it up: What are we actually asking for from the media? Do we want this play by play of a large scale game of chinese checkers, or do we really want to know and pin down what these candidates stand for based on their voting history and what they have said in the past. Thank god for the Associated Press, if nothing else, for really digging into our candidates records. You know you’re reading from a good source when their comment on the status of the race so far is:
THE DEMOCRATS: The top Democratic candidates — Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards — campaign in Nevada. Obama heads later in the day to an economic roundtable in Van Nuys, Calif.
THE REPUBLICANS: Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, John McCain and Fred Thompson campaign in South Carolina. Rudy Giuliani campaigns in Florida.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
The Night of the Living Hillary
National Ledger - Hillary Clinton Campaign Back From the Dead (Jan 9, 2008): "The Hillary Clinton campaign was supposed to be dead this morning, figuratively speaking that is. According to nearly all political wizards, the Hillary campaign was destined to be over and mowed down by the Barack Obama campaign juggernaut in the hinterlands of New Hampshire... Down by double digits in polls just a day earlier, Hillary was able to parlay a flood of tears and sobs into a stunning upset victory over the inexperienced, but (as Joe Biden would say) the "clean and articulate," senator from Illinois. Pundits were thus sent scrambling for answers to this post-Christmas miracle."
Watching a story like this develop from the beginning was a painfully clear example of how the media influences the decisions of the public. First, they were just coming off a wave of accusations that Hillary's campaign, the most well-funded one on the Democratic side I might add, was over after Iowa. Give up, folks, she lost the first of 50 primary races in a non-representative sample of the country, she may as well stop trying. In just four years, we have gone from calling the results of crucial states too early, and therefore getting it plainly wrong out of nothing but childish impatience and a 'me first' reporting style, to calling the results of an entire primaries battle based on the non-final opinion of less than 250,000 people whose judgment I wouldn't trust anyway.
From there, stories abounded of Obama's unforseen (really? I always thought he was a viable contender), absolutely unstoppable momentum and Hillary's demise. Barack dominated the New Hampshire polls, his words were treated like gold, young girls swooned as he got off airplanes. Then came the waterworks. As drops of pure emotion fell down Hillary's cheeks, the women of America (or at least New Hampshire) had a collective bonding moment and decided to stand with solidarity with this generation's equivalent of Rosie the Riveter. Their points of disagreement, their distrust of a heavily embedded politician, their yearning desire for someone fresh and inspiring (the reasons they were intending on voting for Obama in the first place), all were put to the side as they held hands in a strength circle and nudged Hil (as they now call her) to victory.
The news outlets were so prescient in their coverage of this event. They claimed that even though it was a barely a day and a half before the vote took place, that this could turn the unturnable tide and get this struggling candidate back in the game. Day and night they showed the image and retold the humanizing tale to emphasize how this could be the moment that changes everything. This could be the pivotal point that brings her "back from the dead." Lo and behold, the votes come in and while Barack got the 37% he was predicted to receive in the now worthless poll projections, Hillary had jumped 9 points to receive the blessing of a state that only weeks before had been considered in the bag, and had slipped out of her grasp for an excruciating 5 days.
"Did the the tears win the people back?" some journalists asked.
"This was obviously a ploy," certain pundits demanded.
"The polls said that Barack was clearly in the lead, Hillary cried, and then Hillary won. The event was undoubtedly staged and is clearly the cause for the win," an imaginary commentator was quoted as saying.
* * *
The problem with the entire situation is that every source was inundated with an overstated, and often false claim. Namely, that Hillary Clinton was bawling at that diner. However, because the aforementioned claim was spouted from any reporter who wanted to keep his damn job, people believed the statement even if they wouldn't have come to that conclusion by watching the video on their own. She didn't cry, she got slightly choked up. Granted, it was a show of some emotion, but a mere whimper doesn't qualify you as a particularly emotive person. If that widely-held opinion could be swayed that easily, then it certainly shouldn't have been something that determined their vote so vehemently in the first place.
Most people report that their opinions are not shaped by the news. Rather, they believe that they take in bits of information from numerous sources and come to their own conclusion. Psychological studies have indicated in more than one instance, however, that a person may perceive an opinion to be more widespread if the claim is repeated often, and that an opinion that is believed to be widespread is more likely to be considered true.
Therefore if the major media outlets incessantly repeat that Hillary's tears [sic] will influence the vote in New Hampshire, and if one believes that many understand the purported event to be an acceptable reason to sway their vote, and if the actual conclusion is that the vote was swayed to Hillary, then the reporting of the event should be considered a main definable cause for that sway.
The counter-argument is that you can't be sure that it was Hillary's sniffles that swung it over. Well, I suggest you look at the video yourself and determine if it warranted the massive, simultaneous change of heart.
To Sum It Up: Barack's final percentage was 37%, the same number in pre-election polls that show him winning as was in post-election results that proved him lost. Hillary was predicted to win New Hampshire for weeks before the Iowa caucuses, so the actual results could, in a way, be seen as a correction of the overblown impact of Barack's win.
Hillary got about the same results as pre-Iowa polls predicted. Barack got the more than pre-Iowa polls predicted, but the same as pre-New Hampshire polls predicted.
Conclusion: All Iowa served to do was boost Obama's popularity at John Edward's expense, while Hillary remained scathed but relatively stable.
Watching a story like this develop from the beginning was a painfully clear example of how the media influences the decisions of the public. First, they were just coming off a wave of accusations that Hillary's campaign, the most well-funded one on the Democratic side I might add, was over after Iowa. Give up, folks, she lost the first of 50 primary races in a non-representative sample of the country, she may as well stop trying. In just four years, we have gone from calling the results of crucial states too early, and therefore getting it plainly wrong out of nothing but childish impatience and a 'me first' reporting style, to calling the results of an entire primaries battle based on the non-final opinion of less than 250,000 people whose judgment I wouldn't trust anyway.
From there, stories abounded of Obama's unforseen (really? I always thought he was a viable contender), absolutely unstoppable momentum and Hillary's demise. Barack dominated the New Hampshire polls, his words were treated like gold, young girls swooned as he got off airplanes. Then came the waterworks. As drops of pure emotion fell down Hillary's cheeks, the women of America (or at least New Hampshire) had a collective bonding moment and decided to stand with solidarity with this generation's equivalent of Rosie the Riveter. Their points of disagreement, their distrust of a heavily embedded politician, their yearning desire for someone fresh and inspiring (the reasons they were intending on voting for Obama in the first place), all were put to the side as they held hands in a strength circle and nudged Hil (as they now call her) to victory.
The news outlets were so prescient in their coverage of this event. They claimed that even though it was a barely a day and a half before the vote took place, that this could turn the unturnable tide and get this struggling candidate back in the game. Day and night they showed the image and retold the humanizing tale to emphasize how this could be the moment that changes everything. This could be the pivotal point that brings her "back from the dead." Lo and behold, the votes come in and while Barack got the 37% he was predicted to receive in the now worthless poll projections, Hillary had jumped 9 points to receive the blessing of a state that only weeks before had been considered in the bag, and had slipped out of her grasp for an excruciating 5 days.
"Did the the tears win the people back?" some journalists asked.
"This was obviously a ploy," certain pundits demanded.
"The polls said that Barack was clearly in the lead, Hillary cried, and then Hillary won. The event was undoubtedly staged and is clearly the cause for the win," an imaginary commentator was quoted as saying.
* * *
The problem with the entire situation is that every source was inundated with an overstated, and often false claim. Namely, that Hillary Clinton was bawling at that diner. However, because the aforementioned claim was spouted from any reporter who wanted to keep his damn job, people believed the statement even if they wouldn't have come to that conclusion by watching the video on their own. She didn't cry, she got slightly choked up. Granted, it was a show of some emotion, but a mere whimper doesn't qualify you as a particularly emotive person. If that widely-held opinion could be swayed that easily, then it certainly shouldn't have been something that determined their vote so vehemently in the first place.
Most people report that their opinions are not shaped by the news. Rather, they believe that they take in bits of information from numerous sources and come to their own conclusion. Psychological studies have indicated in more than one instance, however, that a person may perceive an opinion to be more widespread if the claim is repeated often, and that an opinion that is believed to be widespread is more likely to be considered true.
Therefore if the major media outlets incessantly repeat that Hillary's tears [sic] will influence the vote in New Hampshire, and if one believes that many understand the purported event to be an acceptable reason to sway their vote, and if the actual conclusion is that the vote was swayed to Hillary, then the reporting of the event should be considered a main definable cause for that sway.
The counter-argument is that you can't be sure that it was Hillary's sniffles that swung it over. Well, I suggest you look at the video yourself and determine if it warranted the massive, simultaneous change of heart.
To Sum It Up: Barack's final percentage was 37%, the same number in pre-election polls that show him winning as was in post-election results that proved him lost. Hillary was predicted to win New Hampshire for weeks before the Iowa caucuses, so the actual results could, in a way, be seen as a correction of the overblown impact of Barack's win.
Hillary got about the same results as pre-Iowa polls predicted. Barack got the more than pre-Iowa polls predicted, but the same as pre-New Hampshire polls predicted.
Conclusion: All Iowa served to do was boost Obama's popularity at John Edward's expense, while Hillary remained scathed but relatively stable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
