Why Democrats lose in Massachusetts: Reprise

Well it's been a while again, but life happens sometimes and the political world has been, well, dull lately. Okay, maybe not to some of you who care about things like "Health Care" or "Haiti" but for me, they just aren't the same as a good Energy Policy debate or a really interesting election.

For those of you who don't remember, I wrote a bit back in 2008 about why Democrats lose in Massachusetts. If you don't, well, I gave you a link, go read, I'll wait.

Done? Good. (Spoiler alert, that isn't what happened this time.)

So there was a special election to fill the empty seat of Ted Kennedy in the Senate. You've probably heard about it in the vast amounts of news. I was home a week or so before the election, just when the national news started to pay attention and asked around a bit to see what was going on. There was a general lack of concern. Everyone was generally dismissive of Scott Brown's chances, regardless of what the polls said.

Now that he's won the media is scrambling all over itself to explain why this happened and are grasping at reasons. I haven't heard anyone get it right yet. They call it a "national referendum" and a "judgment on Obama" and other high and mighty things.

The truth is (as I've mentioned briefly in the past) Massachusetts is a contrarian state. It was bad enough when Coakley acted like she was a sure thing and didn't even need to bother convincing anyone. That, probably, could've been forgiven. But when the national media started paying attention because it could change the "critical vote" on Health Care and wrote Brown off as a convincing, but likely unelectable underdog... that was when Coakley lost.

To the rest of the country this was an election about health care reform and partisan politics. In Massachusetts, this was a big ol' middle finger to the rest of the country. It's not that we from the Bay State don't like the rest of you or want you to have health care reform, we just hate being told what to do and REALLY hate being told why to do it.

Massachusetts already has progressive health care. They didn't need to elect someone to the senate for that. The rest of the country decided that was the issue Massachusetts was voting on, but the reality is that it wouldn't have really affected them. Massachusetts was voting on all of the other issues they disagree with Scott Brown on, but mostly they were voting to prove that they don't have to do what everyone else thinks they'll do.

Well at Least They're Safe...

Right, so it's been a few months since I've written anything and I'm sorry about that, but the elections got boring. For the first time in my memory we had two nominees who won on moderate platforms. Both McCain and Obama had independents to thank for their early wins. Granted their moderate platforms were very different. Obama was running on a platform of change and hope while McCain ran on what I can only describe as curmudgeony experience.

Sadly they are still boring. I had high hopes for the VP choices. They really could have woken up the moderate center of America that is tired of far left/far right politics. They could have made a real effort at reuniting the country. They decided not to.

Obama, candidate of change, hope, and vague idealism. His VP choice: Joe Biden, epitome of Washington Establishmentism. I have nothing against Biden really, but he doesn't fit with a platform of change. He's been in the Senate for 35 years. The only interesting part of his selection as VP is watching the liberal media outlets bend over backwards to paint him as a "Washington Outsider". Apparently going home regularly (he lives a whole 2 hours away) is enough to keep you "outside" in Washington.

Meanwhile over in McCain land we witness the candidate of EXPERIENCE (said in a loud booming voice). His VP choice: Sarah Palin the first term governor of Alaska. Apparently she's some kind of darling for the social conservatives, but again, she doesn't fit with a platform of experience. She's been Governor of Alaska for 2 years. Before that she was mayor of a town about half the size of my college for 6 years. Again, however, it is entertaining to watch the conservative media outlets bend over backwards to paint her as experienced. Apparently she's better than Obama or Biden because two years is more than either of them (or McCain) has in the executive branch. Also, it's apparently worth noting that since Alaska is so close to Russia, she has foreign policy experience, in much the same way that everyone living next to the ocean is an Olympic Swimmer.

In conclusion, I'm still utterly disappointed in the candidates. Maybe one of them will excite me by November... but I doubt it.

That Thing You Do

In the ongoing saga that is the Democratic primary we finally have something new to talk about. Pennsylvania, home to Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and probably a couple people who live in between. In the latest battle of what I expect will be a grand lesson in Pyrrhic victories Clinton has once again proven that she wins in urban areas. Anyone that was surprised she won has either slept through the last three months or they've been drinking a bit too much of Obama's Kool-Aid.

At this point one of them really needs to bite the bullet and bow out. There are valid arguments for either one of them getting the nomination, but neither one of them is willing to make that admission. Obama is in the lead with the delegates and if the general election were a national popular vote he would be the clear choice. Unfortunately for Obama we don't have a national popular election. We have an electoral college with winner take all systems in most states. Obama has won the primaries in 26 states at this point compared to Clinton's 15. But is it a question of quantity or quality?

Of those 26 primaries, Obama has won in 12 states that are considered "safe" by the Republicans. In other words, no matter how badly he beat Clinton there, he won't win them in November. Additionally 9 of the states he won are considered "safe" by the Democrats. By comparison Clinton won 3 "safe" Republican states and 5 "safe" Democrat states. I'm choosing to ignore the "safe" states for the same reason the candidates will in the fall. They're almost guaranteed to go to their party.

This leaves Obama with 5 swing states and Clinton with 7. The only swing state that has yet to vote is West Virginia which I will predict with relative certainty that it will go to Obama. In fact, while I'm here making predictions, I also predict Montana, South Dakota, Kentucky, and North Carolina will go to Obama. I'm hedging my bets on Oregon and Indiana which I think could go either way.

Now then, assuming Obama takes West Virginia we have 6 swing states vs 7 swing states. They are: Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Virginia.

Obama took Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Virginia for a total of 55 Electoral College votes.

Clinton took Arkansas, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas for a total of 95 Electoral College votes.

To put this in perspective, the required number to win is 270 Electoral College votes and the "safe" democrat states account come to 201 Electoral College votes. Furthermore the last 2 elections were decided by less than 40 Electoral College votes. Now, this isn't to say that Obama or Clinton wouldn't take the swing states they lost in the primary, but they'd certainly have an easier time winning states that already voted for them once.

I also feel obliged to point out that had Florida and Michigan not been so Earth shatteringly stupid in holding their primaries early, Clinton's Electoral College total would get another 44 vote bump. In the end, while I think Clinton is more electable, I think it's more important that it be decided before the convention. The democrats are shaping up to throw away the easiest victory they've had in years with this dirty campaigning and that's bad politics.

Media Monsters

According to the mainstream media the democratic race is all but over and Obama has already won. To be fair, they already called it over in Clinton's favor 6 months ago. In much the same way the Republican nominee was guaranteed to be McCain only after it was guaranteed to be Romney, Huckabee, and Guiliani.

I've made no attempt to hide the fact that Obama is not my favorite candidate. I don't want him to get the nomination but if he does I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. That said, I don't think his current bounce in the polls has much to do with him gaining any ground. Sure he's won a lot of states in a row, but most of those are less populous states in fly-over-country. In other words, he's winning in states that he can't take in the fall anyway, the republican party is too good at uniting behind a candidate (even if they don't entirely like him) to allow inroads into the solidly red states. Clinton on the other hand has been doing well in the larger / more populous states (NY, CA, NJ, MA) as well as the swing states (PA, MI, FL, OH).

The largest states Obama has taken are Illinois, Georgia, and Virginia. In terms of the electoral college those are almost worth California (49 vs 55). Until the last week of nearly incessant reporting on how many states (regardless of their delegate counts or usefulness in the fall) Obama has taken in a row, Clinton was leading by a significant margin in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Texas.

I hate to say that some states don't matter but its the truth. No democrat is going to take Georgia or Texas or most of the Midwest. No republican is going to take New York or Massachusetts or most of the Northeast. The only states with significant electoral votes (more than 15) that swing are Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. The other states are either predictably red/blue with minimal effort or so small that they aren't worth the time and money to sway.

"Yes We Can"... fail

I can almost feel the dirty looks I'm going to get from most of my friends for writing this, but hopefully they won't hurt me too badly. But in my defense, it's their own fault for making me want to write this.

The more I watch the election results come in the more convinced I am that Obama can't win in the general election. This comes after Obama won all three primaries last week and is likely to win in Maryland and Washington D.C. by similar margins while Virginia will probably go to him but might be a closer race. This is the part where most of my friends get excited and say "See look! He can compete in red states!" And that's true... sort of...

Obama and Clinton have managed to neatly divide the Democratic base. He wins with the young, the educated, the wealthy, blacks, and men. She wins with the old, the less-educated, the poor, whites and latinos, and women. This is great for the primary, but come general election time it'll be risky.

Obama is in many ways the anti-McCain. Young vs. old, black vs. white, democrat vs. republican, etc. But they both appeal to the moderate center of the country. In general I find this to be a good thing, I want moderates in power but I also want a Democrat in the oval office. Obama appeals in red states but hasn't really come through in the traditional blue powerhouse states like Massachusetts (in spite of the Kennedy and Kerry endorsements), New York, California or polling particularly well in traditional battleground states like Ohio, Florida, or Pennsylvania.

Normally that wouldn't be a problem. Blue states aren't going to swing red just because they don't like a moderate democrat. They might however swing for a moderate republican over a moderate democrat. Obama doesn't excite the liberal core enough to lock in the weaker blue states which leaves them open to McCain while McCain seems to have found his place both as a moderate and in the conservative base. Obama might be able to excite the base after the convention but by then McCain will have been running virtually unopposed for months which can only end badly for the democrats.

Edwards

Of the three Democratic candidates I like Edwards the most, which really isn't saying a whole lot. Like might even be too strong of a word. It's really more of a vague preference. Who knows, maybe it's my inner sexist and racist that feels more comfortable voting for a white guy. Regardless he has very little chance of winning but stranger things have happened. Edwards in the news:

His wife has cancer.
...
...
...
...

Yeah that's about it. At this point he's almost been relegated to "also ran" status. If he sticks it out (and starts sucking up to whoever ends up being the front runner after SUPER DUPER MEGA AWESOME HUUUUUUUUUGE ÜBER TUESDAY) he might have a shot at the VP spot. He's young enough that 8 years from now (pretty much the only time a VP runs) he'd be a viable candidate touting his experience (assuming those 8 years go well).

Edwards is pretty standard fare for a candidate. Middle aged white guy with good hair and a law degree. He's been around too long to play Obama's change card but not political enough to play the experience card that they decided to let Clinton play (not really sure why but they have). This is both his strength and his weakness. He has the charisma and the charm to be competitive, but he can't compare to the perception that electing a black candidate or a female candidate makes us better as a country. The Democrats seem to have decided that it's more important to look like they don't care about race or gender than to elect the better candidate. Either that or he's just as much a mediocre candidate as the rest of them.

If you think he's the best candidate then vote for him, if you don't then don't. I'm personally not convinced, but by all means do try to convince me.

Clinton

I have a love/hate relationship with Clinton. She's pretty much a calculating, manipulative bit... er... politician. And I think that those are her good qualities. Now let's see what the news can tell me about her:

She's a woman.
She's married to Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton is a womanizing liar.
Bill Clinton used to be president.
Bill Clinton was our best/worst president in recent history.

See, now here we have a problem. Aside from the fact that she's a woman, most of the news is about Bill. Now don't misunderstand, I'm a big fan of Bill. Mostly because he was a good politician and a good president, horrible human being, but a good president. I'm one of those people that just doesn't really care what politicians do in their free time (within reason of course). If they want to go around diddling their interns while their wife is gone, that's fine with me. I may not let my hypothetical children apply to be their interns, but I'll still vote for them as long as their diddling doesn't interfere with their job. But regardless of any of that, he's not the one running. I know he's making a lot of speeches for her (much like Mrs. Edwards is making speeches for John) so by all means tell us what he's saying but don't act like it's his campaign. This isn't some sneaky way for him to get back in power, I mean come on, they don't even get along that well (probably has something to do with the intern diddling).

Now to address her supporters. If you can't admit that she's an opportunistic and power hungry politician you're going to be in for a rude awakening. She's cutthroat and ultimately she's out to win. Personally I think those are good qualities for a president to have. She'll do whatever it takes to get her way which is good, just so long as you agree with her. But then if you don't agree with her policies why are you voting for her?

Now for race and/or gender. She's a woman. Yep, I said it. She's also intelligent and well educated. Her gender is irrelevant. She's no more emotional or indecisive than any man I've ever met. Less than most. But again... if her gender is the only reason you're voting for her then you're an idiot. And a sexist.

If you think she's the best candidate then vote for her, if you don't then don't. I'm personally not convinced, but by all means do try to convince me.

Obama

I'm in a ranting at work mood again so I think I'll do little bits on the candidates. I'll start with the Democrats for a couple reasons:

a) I am a registered Democrat so I should care about them more (I don't but I should).
b) There's fewer of them.
c) Their followers and detractors seem more obsessed and idiotic than most of the republicans.

I'll start this off by confessing, I don't like Obama. I don't have a particular reason for it, I just find him to be very nondescript. By a quick perusal of the internet news I can tell you a few things about him.

He's black (sort of).
He goes to a mainly black megachurch that may or may not hate white people.
He's not a Muslim (probably).
He cares about issues more than infighting (but I couldn't find any because of all the infighting).
He pretty much always votes with the Democrats (when he votes).

Yeah that's about it. None of this is a particular reason to vote for him or against him. He's a charismatic public speaker, but that's about it. He's a generic Democrat with a good speaking voice. The whole bit about changing politics and being post-partisan would be a lot more believable if he'd actually done any of it while he was in the senate. None of this is particularly bad, it just means he's another typical Democrat lacking any distinguishing features.

Now to address his critics. First of all religion. There's more to a church than the pastor's political views so I refuse to hold that against him. Maybe he agrees with everything that's said but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. Churches are a strange amalgamation of social, political, and theological organizations and it's a crass oversimplification to claim that a regular attendee has to agree with everything that's said there. And really, are we actually discussing that he might secretly be an Islamic extremist in disguise? I don't even know what else to say about that, it's almost the most absurd thing I have to talk about here. Almost. That prize goes to the people who think he's both a secret Islamic extremist AND a secret militant black Christian separatist. I'm pretty sure that's an either/or situation. Either that or he's got some heretofore unknown mastery of cognitive dissonance.

Now for race and/or gender. I won't say that race and gender aren't issues in this country (partly for fear that my ex will hunt me down and beat me over the head with books about race relations again). I'm one of those people (sometimes accused of being racist) that just doesn't care about race. I think we've gotten to a point where we can focus on poverty regardless of race and it'll sort itself out. But that's a rant for another day. Obama is black and the questions of "is he black enough?" or "will he get the black vote?" need to stop. If you're voting for him (or not voting for him) because he's black then you're an idiot. And a racist.

If you think he's the best candidate then vote for him, if you don't then don't. I'm personally not convinced, but by all means do try to convince me.