Obama on Compromise

Apologies for this very short diary, but in the wake of the FISA fiasco, I thought it would be appropriate and informative.

It was 2005, and the issue on the table was the nomination of John Roberts. Many viewed (and still view) this as a Progressive bellwether issue, much as we view FISA today. Obama's remarks on that issue can be seen here:

http://obama.senate.gov/press/050922-rem arks_of_sena/index.php

and those remarks were received with as much controversy as his FISA remarks last week.

-- more after the jump --

There's more...

Michigan, Florida and Accurate Representation

The question of whether or not the Florida and Michigan compromises are fair will resonate between now and the end of the campaign.

It's a difficult question to answer, since the nature of the primaries themselves muddle the question. How many people would have voted if they knew it was going to count? Does the vote accurately reflect the will of the people in those states? Is the compromise fair to the voters, the candidates and the other 48 states?

A simple, but imperfect, answer is to look at the number of votes cast in the primaries versus the number of delegates that have been alloted. Blue represents Obama, magenta represents Clinton, light blue circles show the compromises. I left the Obama and Clinton dots at 0 in MI/FL (where they were before) so people could track which compromise point was for each candidate.

The black line represents the best fit for all primaries (both candidates), with a fairly decent fit (R-squared is .85 out of 1). For the sake of display, I cut off the far primaries (California, for instance), but the fit was generally pretty close out there as well.

There's more...

An Alternate Solution for Florida and Michigan.

The Democratic Party has a problem.

Two states decided to play chicken with the DNC and nobody swerved. Now there's a gigantic accident with too many innocent bystanders injured. But what to do? With the Rules Committee meeting soon, it is a subject that is sure to be tossed around with even more regularity this upcoming week. I'd like to propose what I would like to see, though obviously my opinion (in the grand scheme) carries about as much weight as the photons carrying this message to your eyes.

There's more...

The non-nuclear option

Because I am a Democrat, and because that's the only thing left that just about everyone on this site has in common, we should consider what last night's events, and those of the past three months have told us.

Neither Obama or Clinton has a large enough base to have a reasonable chance to win this thing by themselves.

Both poll at about 45-50 percent nationally, with little meaningful variation. Both sides have significant amounts of supporters who are independents/conservative Democrats/overzealous youth/African-Americans/strong-minded women who could sit out or vote for McCain if either wins by superdelegate, which we all admit has to happen for someone to reach the magic number. Both sides are just prideful enough to hurt our chances come November.

So why take the chance in November. With the two of them at the top of the ticket, we can bury these guys and get 400 EV's. It's not wishful thinking, its demographics.

Do you really think women or AA'S will not vote if both are on the ticket, in whatever order? Whoever takes VP is one step below the presidency.

How do we do it? Don't change a thing. Keep running for President. Whoever is second at the convention gets the 2nd spot. At this point, that could be either one.

But if any Obama supporters or Hillary supporters are under the illusion that the other's advocates will sit by and watch their dreams taken by superdelegates and still show up in November in adequate enough numbers, they're dreaming.

That's where we are. This has gone on so long that the two camps have become entrenched. Neither wants to give up, and both have compelling cases. They need, however, to stop tearing each other apart. Politics ain't beanbag, but it also isn't supposed to be a mutually assured destruction of our hopes in November.

Keep running, both of you great candidates, but don't forget that November is what matters, no matter who you want to win the nomination.

And for those of you who think that your side will win the nomination and all will be healed, you haven't studied history, have you? 1968, 1976, 1980.

Consider this before you summarily dismiss it, because we all see where this is heading. He has a lead, but she can chip away and make it damn close by the end. Then what? We call it a tie? The superdelegates haven't shown a whole lot of decisiveness so far, have they? They're almost even in super d's.

And forget the brokered convention. You think these people picked delegates so they could change their minds. Neither side took that chance when sending these people to Denver.

Think about it. And answer the poll question.

There's more...

Draft John Edwards

Delegates, pay attention.

You have a 48-47-4 Scenario.  No candidate has a total majority of votes.  As is being said on CNN, by Jeffrey Toobin, this is the worst of all possible worlds for the Democratic Party.  Obama is revealed as having real flaws. while Hilary doesn't seem to have a path to the nomination without potentially ripping apart the party.  Clinton captures the Reagan Democrat demographic.

Either candidate stands to only win a close election at best.

Why not go for the landslide?  Take a compromise candidate-- one whom captures Clinton's blue collar strengths, and one who espouses the Optimism of Obama.   Make the convention matter.  Show that we thrive with a representative vote.  We discuss issues in our party.  Why should we sacrifice the opportunity for maximum exposure that an Open Convention would bring?  This could show the Democratic Party at its best-- with senators and governors having equal footing with ordinary citizens.

Why not take the sure thing?  

Think about it.

There's more...


Advertise Blogads