Skill vs. Enthusiasm Watch, 01/09/2008
Or, "Age and Treachery will always beat youth and inexperience, Part MCMXXXIV."
By Moe Lane Posted in 2008 | Amateurs | Florida | Michigan | Suckers! — Comments (20) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The trap jaws have already sprung shut, but, hey: at least they're trying. For all the good it will do them:
Voters Face Confusion in Michigan Dem Race
By Peter SlevinCHICAGO -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is the only top-tier Democrat on the Jan. 15 Michigan primary ballot, but followers of her chief rivals are hoping to wound her all the same.
A fresh poll suggests that running nearly unopposed will not mean winning nearly 100 percent of the vote.
The campaigns of Sen. Barack Obama and former senator John Edwards are urging their supporters to cast ballots for "uncommitted," according to state Democratic party chairman Mark Brewer. The Obama campaign says there may be "grass-roots efforts," but that the Chicago-based campaign is not involved.
Via Protein Wisdom, and more here.
Read on.
What is going on, of course, is that it's finally becoming clear to both the Obama and the Edwards campaigns that they made a serious tactical error in Michigan. Both Michigan and Florida are currently being "punished" for having their primaries early by the Democratic National Committee, which has declared that neither State's delegates will be seated at the national convention in Denver. As a result, the various Democratic campaigns are not officially active in either State, and both Obama and Edwards have even removed their names from the ballots in Michigan.
But Clinton has not - and it has apparently suddenly dawned on the Obama campaign that A). he is not inevitably going to be the nominee after all and B). he has no assurance that the Michigan delegates will not be seated. A). is perhaps excusable - it can be difficult to believe that you are mortal when people line up to assure you otherwise - but B). really should have been obvious. Obama is on the ballot in Florida for the same reasons everyone else is: it's up for grabs (2000 is closer to the situation than 2004), and nobody wants to tick off the partisans down there. That includes the DNC, which is why Florida will be seated in Denver. But if Florida gets seated, so must Michigan - Michigan is one State that the GOP will be targeting, and it's too big to ignore, and the margin is closer there than it was in Florida in 2004. Hence this drive to get as many uncommitted delegates as possible; because otherwise Hillary essentially walks away with the lion's share.
Now this is the funny part: I get to give some advice to progressives, and the best bit about it is, it's good advice, which they will hate hearing with a passion. Here we go: by all means, try this trick with uncommitted delegates in Michigan. Then, when it doesn't work, you're best off switching support immediately to Hillary Clinton to get her overwhelmingly nominated. Abandon everybody else, and flock to her standard. No games, no tricks.
Why? Simple. Barack Obama isn't going to get the nomination outright. New Hampshire just demonstrated that your core assumptions about his inevitability were unsupported, and now it's back to slogging. He and his are not good at slogging; if they had, they'd have won New Hampshire. And you can't count on Edwards walking away before 02/06/2008: Hell's bells, Bill Richardson was dithering about dropping out, and he has no chance at all. So abandon all hope of Obama's victory, ye who read here. That leaves either a Clinton win, or a brokered convention. And you don't want a brokered convention, primarily because it won't be one. Let me explain why.
Imagine, for a moment, that it's August in lovely, downtown Denver. Let's talk climate, really quickly: it's probably going to be not too hot (mid-70s, which is actually quite nice), but you're going to be a mile up, so altitude is going to be an issue, not to mention UV radiation. So, avoid over-exertion, OK? No, really, this is actually relevant; you'll see why in a second.
Now, let us presume for a moment that the situation is such that no candidate officially has enough for a majority, but that Hillary Clinton has enough unofficial Florida (210 at stake) and Michigan (156 at stake) delegates to win the nomination, if they are seated. Getting them seated will be then the first order of business, and that fight will be seized upon by... not you, of course. You're a reasonable person. But your friend Bob - you know the one I'm talking about; the enthusiastic one - and a bunch of his enthusiastic friends are going to get very exercised about this. He and they will be at Denver, in fact. And they'll probably be drinking something other than water, and they may not be wearing their hats.
Now let us contemplate what happens when the delegates are seated, thus ensuring Hillary's nomination. And make no mistake: in this scenario, your Party Establishment will not take the risk of offending either two swing States' worth of Democrats or Senator Clinton. So... she gets the nomination. Bob hears about this. Bob gets angry, because from his point of view, everything that he's ever been told about the System just got validated. Bob's also probably drunk and/or slightly dehydrated, possibly mildly sunburned and almost certainly suffering from a massive headache.
Didn't we have something like this, 40 years ago?
Let me summarize. The GOP is facing the possibility of a brokered convention, and we really don't remember how that sort of thing works, so we're both a little worried about it and a little excited about it. In this scenario, the Democratic Party is facing the possibility of a disputed convention, and everybody remembers how the last one of those turned out. So... if you want to avoid that, better either make sure that it's a truly brokered convention - and I wish you joy of the attempt - or get behind Hillary Clinton just as soon as it becomes clear that you simply won't be able to replace her with any more "suitable" candidate.
(pause)
Why, yes, that will mean offering up all of your principles - particularly those on the War in Iraq - as a sacrifice to the Democratic Party Establishment. Is this a problem for you? I can't imagine why: by now the progressive movement has certainly practiced the procedure enough to be actually rather good at it. Besides, isn't that why they keep you around, anyway? To give them what they need, when they need it?
Hey, don't blame the messenger if you don't like the message. Particularly when you wrote it yourself.
Moe Lane
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Barack Obama: Alive And Well — Comments (7) »
Skill vs. Enthusiasm Watch, 01/09/2008 20 Comments (0 topical, 20 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
It should be in the 90s during the day. Liberal friends be sure to bring a jacket because as soon as the sun sets, you need it.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
For anyone used to humidity, it will feel like the mid-70s. Great time of year to visit the Mile High City, catch a Rockies or a preseason Broncos game.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
...average temperatures over the last few years.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
SoCons better just suck it up and support Giuliani, since he is going to get the nomination!
Oh, wait, no...
Attack dogs that gleefully threw around "Flip Flopper!" better just suck it up and support Romney, since he is going to get the nomination!
Oh, wait, no...
FisCons and NeoCons better just suck it up and support Huckabee, since he is going to get the nomination!
Oh, wait, no...
Every single person on RedState that spent the last eight years attacking everything that McCain said or did better just suck it up and support him, since he is going to get the nomination!
Oh, wait, no...
Your smarmy "advice" is just sad, really.
Clinton might not be the favorite of the leftroots, but her policy positions are completely acceptable. All the guys on your side are going to tear the Republican coalition in half, then lose the election anyway. Except for McCain, maybe. I'd like to see him win the primary, then watch everyone here throw their "First Amendment", "Enhanced interrogation", "Cut taxes", "Confirm them" ideals out the window and work to get him elected anyway.
Here's some "advice" for you: Find a new Party. I hear that the Democrats are going to be pretty popular this season. Depending you where you live, you might still have time to change your registration and vote for Obama in the primary.
Hey, don't blame the messenger if you don't like the message.
Democrats purely hated hearing good advice then too. You'd think that they would have learned from that not to let their egos write checks that their bodies couldn't cash, but if the 2007 Great Netroot Betrayal didn't do that, then I guess that nothing will...
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
He also conceded that McCain is THEIR candidate, not ours, and that he wants McCain, as a matter of lefty strategy. Hey, HE spelled out the issues vis-a-vis McCain, and on that, he's right.
Who didn't already know that, though? C'mon, seriously...
What I wonder is, after McCain is finally gone (they wouldn't actually try to foist an 80 year old McCain on us, would they? This is, blessedly, the last chance for libs to 'nominate' him) will the 'let's try to choose the GOP candidate for them' game still go on? With who in the role of McCain, next time?
On the other hand, if we have an incumbent in 2012, and a veep as the shoo-in nominee in 2016, we may not have to deal with this sort of nonsense for a good while.
The whole point of the OP was a Republican telling Democrats how to pick their candidate, not the other way around.
The only reason I'd like to see McCain get the nod on the Republican side is so I can watch all the cognitive-dissonance-induced head explosions as people throw 8 years of anti-McCain rhetoric out the window and start working to get him elected because "he's better than the Democrat". He seems like an intelligent, honorable guy, but I don't agree with very many of his policy ideas.
"as people throw 8 years of anti-McCain rhetoric out the window and start working to get him elected because "he's better than the Democrat". "
You really think this would happen, theoretically speaking? I guess you can only go by what the Democrats you know would do in that situation, so I can understand you thinking that. But [whispers conspiratorially:] I wouldn't get my hopes up too much...
Let's face it -- if he got the nod, it would be because most GOPers wanted him to. That's how it works! So why exactly would their heads theoretically explode over having selected him? What, you think NOT selecting him isn't an option, somehow? What the hell do you think party primaries are for, anyway? They're so that parties don't have to have nominees that make their heads explode. It seems to me that you could have thought this all through a little better, there, Jack.
As to this - "I don't agree with very many of his policy ideas", here's a newsflash for you: None of us do, either. So why exactly do you think he has a chance of being OUR nominee? We don't even like him as much as you Democrats do; why would WE nominate his sorry ass?
I've said this many times before, and I think it's good advice for those Democrats who like McCain: you like him, YOU nominate him. If you're counting on us to, I think you're going to end up settling for a whole lot less than you hoped for.
Hah, please continue to live in the glorious days of 2004. The realignment is at hand! A new era of Republican leadership* is dawning!
Just ignore those pesky 2006 results. And don't even worry about 2008. I'm sure it's all going to be just fine.
* I use the term "leadership" loosely. Just being the person that make the decisions doesn't necessarily make you a leader.
...to anger me. Well, on this: you could probably tick me off by deliberately breaking the site rules or something, but when it comes to trying to get my goat over political victories you're going to have to wait until your Speaker and Senate Majority Leader actually acquire a few for you. 2007 was a great year for the neocons, and we have the progressives to thank for it. Much obliged.
And this is precisely the reaction that I was aiming to get, so much obliged for that, too.
Have a nice day! :)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
So, you are saying that you spent an hour typing up a snarky, condescending screed... just so someone could come along and tell you that you look pretty silly giving advice to the leftroots (who are, generally, pretty satisfied with their potential nominees) when the Republican nomination is essentially tearing the rightroots apart?
In addition to my previous advice to find a new Party (which you seem determined to ignore), here's a little more: An exchange of Silly argument. Rebuttal. Ya, well, I wanted you to say that! doesn't make you look like a sophisticated essayist that has led an unsuspecting opponent into an oratorical trap; it makes you look like a six-year-old.
You are trying to throw ****-bombs, but we are just laughing at you. I guess I can't blame you for trying, though. You must have a lot of them saved up from the all the intra-party flinging you guys have been doing for the past six months. It must be nice to try and lob one out of your house every once in a while.
I'm up until 11:30 or so anyway watching the baby: it's this, video games, or generating amateur role-playing game material. And I spent December maxing out on amateur role-playing game material.
Man, this really bothers you. I just figured that you were snarking a bit; but no, you're really upset that there are actually people who are off-your-message. And that we're laughing at you! How dare we laugh at you! Didn't we hear that you won?
beecubed, go eat a sandwich. Or take a walk. Or, heck, have an orgasm in mixed company. But stop pouting. It's unbecoming in one of our regulars - even the liberal ones. :)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I'll go ahead and bow out at this point, since your last two posts have been responses to my posts, claiming that you don't care about my posts. Please feel free to assume that I'm thoroughly nettled. You really got under my skin I'm probably steaming mad right now and just about to put my fist through my monitor.
Good day to you, as well. :-)
PS -- Are you a stay-at-home dad? That is something that I'm willing to admit that I'm jealous of.
Mind you, your life gets broken up into fifteen minute segments, and everything that doesn't fit gets discarded, but it's amazing.
Although I understand that it all abruptly changes once they start walking. :)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
That's funny, I heard the same sort of sarcasm GOING IN to 2004. Every newspaper and pundit everywhere said Bush didn't have a chance, and that the realignment was at hand.
Come to think of it, it goes back farther than that -- to when Gore was going to keep the Clinton years going, and we didn't stand a chance. And in 2002, we were going to lose, too, weren't we?
Here's a tip: It would probably strike more fear if it wasn't the same boilerplate tripe we get from you guys every time. Even flipping a coin would be right a lot more often than you have been.
than watching the Dems bite their own legs off. They are trapped in a hell of their own making with appalling candidates.
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
We have the Best Ad of the Year Award 2007.
Wouldn't THAT be a sight to see. What would the MSM call it? Disaster in Denver? Mile High Melee? Maybe the R's aren't doomed this year after all.