• on a comment on Electability mentality over 6 years ago

    etrollarators are basically instantiating the "down side" of pure democracy, rule by mob.  And the reason our founders made this a representative democracy instead.

  • comment on a post Electability mentality over 6 years ago

    that so few people saw this coming.  To an old geezer like myself who was sentient in the George McGovern days (and backed him fervently), it's been obvious since the first debate.  We've got Mr. intellectual, let's sit back and think about this,  one-worlder, who is going to change the way Washington -- and indeed the world  -- does business now and forever.  Fueled by pure goodness.  

    And I"m thinking ... doesn't anyone remember that no Democrat of that description has been elected in anyone's living memory?   We aren't living in the country you have to live in to have a leader like that.   Not sure anyone is, but I"m sure we aren't.  

    And so you try to, like, maybe mention this on a couple of liberal blogs and you find yourself literally swept away by a tsunami of troll ratings.   To say I'm happy to be proven correct is an overstatement.   I knew I would be proven right, but I"m astonished that it happened so soon and with so little investigative journalism behind it.    Rev. Wright basically outed himself.

    Sad, in a way, how little things have changed.   I know this will earn me scorn among a certain set, but the Clinton years were so much better than the McGovern-Nixon-Ford-Carter-Reagan years.   I really hoped, then, that we were finally entering a new century where the old divisions and stereotypes would fall away.   And they did, for a while.

    But now they're back when a vengeance.   Strange days indeed.   Strange days indeed.

  • comment on a post How Hillary Can Knock-Out Obama over 6 years ago

    sure it would be wise.   Given the level of awareness and intelligence characterizing the pundit class, I'm afraid this would zing right over their heads and give them just one more excuse to excoriate and lampoon our candidate.

    What I would like to see Hillary do is to turn on the "personally dazzling" stuff.   We all know -- thanks to Obama himself, if we didn't know already -- that Hillary's #1 negative trait is this ineffable thing called "likeability".  

    People who know Clinton well almost universally like and respect her as a warm, funny, enormously energetic and intelligent person.   So if Hillary has any political capital to spend at this point, I would urge her to spend it by letting down her hair just a little bit, relaxing, and showing what a fun person she can be.

    This is a perfect time to contrast that side of herself with her opponent who increasingly comes off as dour and professorial.  A man I would NOT want to have a beer with.   What a dreary exercise that would be.

    Hillary, on the other hand?   I can see her spewing beer out her nose within in the first 10 minutes!  <- As likeable as it gets, if you ask me.   :)

  • to speak to their values.  That's why there's been such a push in the Democratic party to get involved in churches and to make our own strong religious and moral values part of the Democratic party identity.

    Then along comes Rev. Wright and catapults us right back into the dark ages of "liberal godless anti-Americanism".    Obama could have prevented this by distancing himself from Wright a long time ago, or at least at the point he made the decision to run.

    The fact that he didn't bother to distance himself from Wright suggests poor judgement, or arrogance, or both.  

  • comment on a post Axelrod: Democrats Don't Win Working Class Whites over 6 years ago

    from the much ballyhooed "50-state strategy".  I thought that according to the Obama playbook it was the CLINTON campaign that was writing off democratic voters right and left, much to the party's detriment.  

    Now he's writing off the Democratic base?   Democrats don't get elected without those people, and Axelrod is now neatly piloting the Obama ship right onto the very shoals that foundered Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry.   The northern intellectual thing.  

    I detected this property in Obama's detached debating style from the very start, but got 'liberally' trounced for mentioning it on dkos.  Now it's becoming clear to a lot more people that Obama and his crew are too smart for ...  if not their own britches, then certainly the britches of the U.S. electorate.    

  • 4) Ok, you're right, one comment does not a character assassination make.  So let's add to it his "Hillary attacks me when she feels down periodically", his and his surrogates' smirking claims that she is "desperate", "will do anything to win", is "a monster", is "disingenuous" [for seeking revotes in MI and FL] and you have a pattern of character assassination and the classic wink-wink form of sexism that most men know about and many practice, but few own up to.

    5) Beg to differ.  Dailykos has been, and continues to be, the launchpad for a wide range of pro-Obama activities, including harassing pro-Hillary bloggers (not just online but using their personal e-mails and phones), deluging Hillary supporters (Mayor Nutter & Geraldine Ferraro, to name just two) with hate mail, and flooding MSM outlets with complaints about fairness (the recent ABC campaign).   Dailykos gets mentioned in the MSM as well, so you can't really deny they're a PR force on Obama's behalf.

    7) In PA Obama said that the "bitter" people suffered under Clinton's presidency.  That's an untruth and anti-Democrat.   He's attacked Clinton on NAFTA (which is another untruth).   His surrogates and MSM supporters have made reference to "the blue dress" (really vile campaign tactic).   There is more, but this gives you the flavor.

  • a scientist, not a logician or philosopher.   So my solution to the sorites problem is empirical.    Sample the phenomenon and get a distribution of responses.  Find the mean and standard deviation of the distribution, then pick a point on the distribution that constitutes your "threshold" for success.  

    I assume the magical 2025 is calculated on the basis of some notion of what constitutes a suitable "majority".   Can anyone remind me what proportion of the total delegate count 2025 is?   My understanding is that it's the number excluding FL and MI.  So it is simple majority, a 2/3 majority, or something else?

  • a thought question for you.   Consider a scenario in which, come June 3, no one has reached the magic 2025 number, but one candidate is leading by 1 pledged delegate.  Is that enough to guarantee that person the nomination?   Or is it just random noise and arguably we have a tie?

    If not 1 pledged delegate, then how about 5 pledged delegates?  10 pledged delegates?   You get my point.   This is what the SDs are facing here, and no one is giving them any help or guidance.  

    Howard Dean (supposedly from the intellectual/brainy wing of the party -- as opposed to the low-brow archie-bunker wing) is failing us miserably here.  It's not too late for him to plant a stake in the ground.  He should come up with a principled approach because two trains are approaching each other on a single track, and he's the guy holding the switch lever.

  • It occurred me to recently that some proportion of Obama's endorsements by SDs are attributable to that factor.  Would be interesting to correlate endorsements with re-election schedules.  Who is running for re-election THIS November as opposed to 2 years from now?

    Regarding your "sig" line:  Obama, his surrogates, and the MSM went negative against Hillary very very early in this campaign:

    1) Obama's "D-Punjab" racial slur - June 2007

    1. MSNBC debate hit job against Hillary - October 2007
    2.  Jesse Jackson Jr. accusing Hillary of "not crying for Katrina victims" - NH primary.
    3.  Obama's snide: "You're likeable enough" - early January debate.
    4. Dailykos bloggers launching vile adjectives at Hillary - at least as early as January 2008, probably much earlier but that's when I started reading.
    5. Obama's infamous "race baiter" memo - SC primary in January.
    6. Obama's relentless attacks on the Clinton presidency (can YOU name the person who should've been president in the 1990s instead of Clinton?).

    Hillary has attacked Obama on his experience and policy choices, which is EXPECTED IN A CAMPAIGN.  It is Obama that has used character assassination (e.g., Rovian tactics)  

  • comment on a post The New Clinton Math Raises Eyebrows over 6 years ago

    Clinton was always going to win OH, PA, TX.   It has nothing to do with momentum lost nor support gained, it's just that these states came later in the line-up.

    The temporal structure of this race is an accident of history (how various states decided to schedule their primaries).  Had the red-state caucuses been scheduled for May instead of February, this race would very likely be over by now, with Clinton's "string of wins" in CA, NJ, MA, OH, TX, PA and FL making her the nominee.

    Ah, what could've been...  

    For my money, the biggest mystery of this entire primary season, and the one on which I hope to see many academic papers and dissertations published -- not to mention investigative reports performed by whatever shred of credible journalism is left after this season -- is the question "Why DID Obama win those caucuses?"


Advertise Blogads