Funk Babblings

Warning: Politics again.

Sorry, I'm trying to stay positive, but this has been really bugging me. Of all the dumb things coming out of the Clinton campaign and some of its supporters, one stands out to me as the most maddenly, stupidly illogical.

That is the idea that a candidate's performance in the primary (or caucus) indicates how they'll do in the general election. That if a candidate loses a state's primary they can't do well in that state in the general election, and if a candidate wins a state's primary they can do well in that state in the general election.

This is stupid.

What group makes up the vast majority of voters in the Democratic primaries? Democrats.
What group makes up the vast majority of voters in the Republican primaries? Republicans.

Yes, depending on the rules in individual states and the current state of the race, independents and Republicans might make up some of the voters in the Democratic primaries. Some of those honestly vote for the candidate they like, others vote strategically in an attempt to make things worse for Democrats (either to extend the nomination campaign or to get the weaker candidate to win). Same goes for non-Republicans in the Republican primaries.

But by the very nature of the primary system, the overwhelming majority of the people voting in a party's primary, no matter which candidate they vote for, will vote for that party's candidate in the general election. And by design, the primary excludes most of the voters who will not vote for the party's nominee (as well as many who will).

As an extra bonus this time around, polls in this campaign have shown that generally Democrats are happy with their candidates, while Republicans generally haven't been happy with theirs.

Yet Clinton and her campaign persist in saying that the winner and loser of a primary is some indicator of how that candidate will do in that state when all the rest of the voters get to vote. They can only be either ignorant or intentionally deceptive. I don't believe they're ignorant, and this sort of deception demonstrates a remarkably low opinion of their audience.

(This is way later than I intended, but hey, the polls have only been open for half an hour!)

First things first: In the grand scheme of things, the positions of Clinton and Obama are pretty close. Despite what you may have heard, both have detailed plans on all manner of issues, those plans and their overall positions are fairly similar, and those plans will inevitably get modified if they ever even make it through Congress.

Each has a life history that prepares them for the global stage. Both are highly intelligent. If you're concerned about ability to accomplish their goals, Obama's legislative record is actually more impressive, writing and passing legislation on all manner of important issues. There's plenty of substance there if you care to look.

On the life experience issue, I should also note that Obama has (at least) as much life experience as Bill "The Man From Hope" Clinton did in 1992 (when he was the same age Obama is), and John F. Kennedy did in 1960 (when he was three years younger).

But my major goal in voting today is to make sure the Democratic nominee will win in November. The biggest reason for that is the Supreme Court -- in replacing Sandra Day O'Connor with Sam Alito, Bush has pulled the court to the scary-right, and there's no doubt that McCain would continue that. McCain is also the guy who wants to stay in Iraq for centuries and joked about bombing Iran, as well as somehow keeping an image as a "maverick" while staying in lock-step with Bush.

So the first thing I look at (both last time around and this time) was the polls vs Republicans. Yes, it's early and things can change, but many of the candidates are already well-known, so those polls haven't changed a whole lot (especially when you consider the margin of error). It's striking that, rather consistently, Obama has polled better against McCain than Clinton has.

Then I look at the way they run their campaigns. The Clinton and Obama campaigns look very much like the Kerry and Dean campaigns four years ago, except that Obama learned from Dean's mistakes. Clinton is running a swing-state campaign, ignoring the "red states", and taking for granted the "blue states". Obama is running a 50-state campaign, bringing voters over to his side not by shifting his positions to the right, but by framing his views in ways that appeal to people who normally vote farther right. The 50-state strategy not only gives a better shot at winning a lot of states we might not otherwise win, but also gives a better shot of helping Democrats win House and Senate seats in Republican seats. More Democrats in Congress means more chance of a Democratic president actually getting their goals accomplished.

In addition, Obama's campaign has shown a remarkable ability to plan ahead, while Clinton's campaign was apparently unprepared to go past Super Tuesday, and has repeatedly been caught by surprise by the quirky rules of various states (such as Nevada and Texas). When the rules that were in place from the start have turned out later to have unfavorable consequences for her, her campaign has even sought to change them after the fact. (Watch for the coming fight over Michigan and Florida delegates, despite everyone knowing the rules ahead of time, those states flouting the rules, and therefore everyone knowing that those contests wouldn't count.) We don't need another president who tries to change the rules after the fact.


It's probably too late to change anyone's mind, but for all these reasons and more I intend to vote today for Barack Obama. And in November I'll happily vote for whichever of the two is still standing.