Letters to the Editor
-
Lets have a contest to find the dumbest person in America who understands why this piece makes no sense at all
Seriously, did someone hit Wilentz on the head with a stupid stick?
So, we play a game of basketball, and I lose by 3 points and the other team has scored 15 points on long range bombs. So I say: "Well, if 3 point shots were only worth 2 points I would have won."
True enough. But if 3 points shots were only worth 2 points, my opponant probably would have not tried to shoot from behind the line and would have looked for easier 2 points shots.
Put another way, if the rules were different the game would have been paid differently.
Now, if you assume that campaigns dont' matter, that they don't affect votes at all, I guess Sean makes some sense. But if you believe that campaigning does matter, isn't it fair to assume that the candidates would deploy their resourses differently. That they would take different shots?
BO is likely to lose Pennsylvania. Under a winner take all system he might well skip the state totally to focus on, say, North Carolina. But because this is proportional, it makes sense for him to try to narrow the gap and play for the delegates. Thats the way the system works.
Assuming the results would be the same if the rules were different is just silly. This also applies to Florida and Michigan. Any doubt that BO would have done better in Michigan if, say, he had been on the ballot? As for Florida, HRC won bigger there than anywhere that wasn't home turf for her. Why? No campaigning. Who knows what would have happened if the candidates had engaged there.
You know, if you look at something from enough angles you can find a way to say you are ahead. So back to a sports metaphore - if I am leading for 58 minutes of a football game, and the opponant overtakes me on a final drive, I can always say that I really won because I was ahead for most of the game. The rules say different, but what the heck.
This is like the "electoral college" theory being pushed by HRC's camp. But of course if this was the game Puerto Rico would't get to vote, would they? And the small states would get more pull than the big ones, per capita.
Lets all just take a breath. There is a contest in place, and there are rules. And whoever wins by the rules, wins. And if HRC wins because the Supers vote for her, she wins. As long as we dont' change the rules late in the game we are fine. No one on the BO side has said that the rules re the Supers should be changed. Just like HRC they have argued what factors Supers should consider in making their decision, and thats fine. But this is not the same as admitting results of elections that were deemed invalid at the outset.
Get real.
-
Rules?
So Obama's side is castigated for being a stickler to the rules? The rules were in place before the primary season began. Florida and Michigan flouted the rules, and were punished. Had they wanted their states' votes to count then they could have adhered to the rules. Although Florida was iffy, Clinton won in Michigan because she was the only one on the ballot. Obama and the others followed the rules and she did not.
What Mrs. Clinton's forces are suggesting is similar to a case in which spring training in baseball does not count, but, retroactively, if your team, by putting in its best players, has a good spring then, lo and behold, let's now count those games in the final standings. Sorry, Hillary, but, regardless of the author's thoughts, rules are rules and cannot be changed in the middle.
-
Perhaps I'm too simple
Perhaps I'm too simple, but Sean Wilentz seems to suggest that Clinton is behind in the popular vote but if the system made sense would get the nomination. Am I missing something here?
-
If "ifs" were fifths we'd all be drunk.
Sean -
Might it also be possible "if" the Democratic nominating process were run a different way then the Obama strategists might have run a different campaign. No offense but the failure of the Clinton campaign was not the system but the management. She had the most recognizable brand name in politics and she and her campaign failed time after time to capitalize on it. The campaign made assumptions about "it will be over by Super Tuesday" and had no plan for when it wasn't. Penn was allowed to follow his micro-trend theory long after it was proven it wasn't working.
You don't win by saying if the rules were different or the filed was in better shape we'd be winning. You win by adjusting. Hillary didn't adjust and so she now finds herself behind.
-
What Rules?
Two quick comments on "the rules": People talk about "the rules" as if this was a sporting event and the point was to be fair to the candidates. It is not (or at least shouldn't be), it should be about the voters. It is outrageous that the voters in Florida and Michigan are being dis-enfranchised -- again in Florida's case! Secondly, the Florida primary date was moved primarily by the REPUBLICAN PARTY not by the local Democratic Party. As I understand it, the Florida state legislature, controlled by the GOP, voted on the primary date and it was set in law by a bill signed by the Republican Governor. The local Dems would be violating the law to move a state-financed primary whose date is set by law. The DNC is denying Democratic voters in Florida their voting rights because of a law set by the GOP. Supposedly, the DNC is "punishing" them for changing their dates, but actually, the DNC is shooting its own party in the foot. The GOP gave Howard Dean a loaded gun, told him to shoot himself/ the Democratic Party in the foot, and Dean said, "Oh, OK". So now we have the spectacle of the GOP under Gov Crist, allying with Howard Dean and Sen. Obama to dis-enfranchise Democratic voters in Florida. The Republicans must be doubled over in laughter.