New Hampshire and the Unemployment Line
First a disclaimer. I'm still in the "undecided" column so far as the leading candidates are concerned so this is not a pitch for Senator Clinton or a negative post about any of the other candidates.
So - the pundits pundited, the pollsters polled, and the spinners spun. Most of the two days before the Primary were filled with fretting about the Senator's show of emotion. Was it real? Would it hurt? Would it help? Does an emotional moment speaking to a small group mean she's unfit to govern?
Of course before that they wasted an untold amount of airtime bemoaning her lack of "feelings". Damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. Very little time was spent on actual issues.
A few days ago, Ray and I were talking about the 10% lead Senator Obama had over Clinton in the polls. In very small print, it said "plus or minus 5". I said if you take 5 from Obama and give them to Clinton, you'll have a dead heat. I came a lot closer than the polling experts.
I don't know what caused the turnaround in NH but I think part of it may have been backlash. The voters may have grown weary of being told what they should think. Or perhaps they don't care for bullies (almost the same thing).
I wonder if any of the experts are looking for work this morning.
Our process is flawed, if not broken. It may not have been so noticeable before the days of t.v. and instant communication but it's glaring now. In the first place, it's turned into a beauty contest. I think that probably started with JFK and the first t.v. debates. Even though I liked the result, I think that Nixon's five o'clock shadow and almost sullen appearance had far more to do with his defeat than the issues.
Governor Richardson, with his long history of public service and his quiet manner, didn't stand a chance this time around.
In my earlier post, I asked why the Primaries couldn't be held on the same day (with the results held until we on the left coast had a chance to vote). Now I'm thinking - why have Primaries and those huge, expensive conventions at all? The Electoral College may have seemed like a good idea in its time but the way it works (or doesn't) now, it's ridiculous.
Just think. If we skipped the primaries, the convention, and went straight to a short campaign followed by a national election, the candidates might have time to spend on their actual jobs instead of running from state to state and tailoring their messages to their audiences. Iowa? Conservative. New Hampshire? Mavericks. South Carolina? That should be interesting. I can hardly wait. And, while we're at it, we should do something about financial reform and contributions. The Presidency shouldn't be decided by the millions and millions it costs to run a campaign and it certainly shouldn't be decided by the corporations who have their own interests at heart; not ours. Accepting only individual contributions with a $ limit would be a good start. Federal funding is another thought and the one I lean toward although I haven't figured out how to apportion it yet.
One of the arguments for keeping the Electoral College is that the smaller states would be overwhelmed by New York, California, Illinois, etc. I don't think that's true. In most of our Presidential elections the popular vote and the Electoral tally produced the same result.
I'm still thinking about how to select a Vice President. The runnerup of the same party? Why not?
The candidate who wins will be President of the United States; not the President of Iowa, New Hampshire, or even my own California (or Arkansas where I spent 8 years or New York where i was born). Candidates should have one message for the entire country. Now it's all about an early lead in a few small states. The media and the pollsters spin and the tail wags the dog. There has to be a better way. Personally, I like what I've heard of Canada's. We might not be able to copy it completely but it's worth some study.
Anyhow, it's on to South Carolina, Michigan, and soon Super Tuesday. Are we having fun yet?
NIL ILLEGITIMUS CARBORUNDUM
COMMENTS:
So - the pundits pundited, the pollsters polled, and the spinners spun. Most of the two days before the Primary were filled with fretting about the Senator's show of emotion. Was it real? Would it hurt? Would it help? Does an emotional moment speaking to a small group mean she's unfit to govern?
Of course before that they wasted an untold amount of airtime bemoaning her lack of "feelings". Damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. Very little time was spent on actual issues.
A few days ago, Ray and I were talking about the 10% lead Senator Obama had over Clinton in the polls. In very small print, it said "plus or minus 5". I said if you take 5 from Obama and give them to Clinton, you'll have a dead heat. I came a lot closer than the polling experts.
I don't know what caused the turnaround in NH but I think part of it may have been backlash. The voters may have grown weary of being told what they should think. Or perhaps they don't care for bullies (almost the same thing).
I wonder if any of the experts are looking for work this morning.
Our process is flawed, if not broken. It may not have been so noticeable before the days of t.v. and instant communication but it's glaring now. In the first place, it's turned into a beauty contest. I think that probably started with JFK and the first t.v. debates. Even though I liked the result, I think that Nixon's five o'clock shadow and almost sullen appearance had far more to do with his defeat than the issues.
Governor Richardson, with his long history of public service and his quiet manner, didn't stand a chance this time around.
In my earlier post, I asked why the Primaries couldn't be held on the same day (with the results held until we on the left coast had a chance to vote). Now I'm thinking - why have Primaries and those huge, expensive conventions at all? The Electoral College may have seemed like a good idea in its time but the way it works (or doesn't) now, it's ridiculous.
Just think. If we skipped the primaries, the convention, and went straight to a short campaign followed by a national election, the candidates might have time to spend on their actual jobs instead of running from state to state and tailoring their messages to their audiences. Iowa? Conservative. New Hampshire? Mavericks. South Carolina? That should be interesting. I can hardly wait. And, while we're at it, we should do something about financial reform and contributions. The Presidency shouldn't be decided by the millions and millions it costs to run a campaign and it certainly shouldn't be decided by the corporations who have their own interests at heart; not ours. Accepting only individual contributions with a $ limit would be a good start. Federal funding is another thought and the one I lean toward although I haven't figured out how to apportion it yet.
One of the arguments for keeping the Electoral College is that the smaller states would be overwhelmed by New York, California, Illinois, etc. I don't think that's true. In most of our Presidential elections the popular vote and the Electoral tally produced the same result.
I'm still thinking about how to select a Vice President. The runnerup of the same party? Why not?
The candidate who wins will be President of the United States; not the President of Iowa, New Hampshire, or even my own California (or Arkansas where I spent 8 years or New York where i was born). Candidates should have one message for the entire country. Now it's all about an early lead in a few small states. The media and the pollsters spin and the tail wags the dog. There has to be a better way. Personally, I like what I've heard of Canada's. We might not be able to copy it completely but it's worth some study.
Anyhow, it's on to South Carolina, Michigan, and soon Super Tuesday. Are we having fun yet?
NIL ILLEGITIMUS CARBORUNDUM
COMMENTS:
posted by Granny @ 1/09/2008 07:22:00 AM
what gets me is they were saying 'she came undone''broke down'...'was overwhelmed'...judas priest..if you look at the clip..the most that happened was her voice broke and her eyes got a little wet...hell, I cry more than that when I cut my leg shaving...
Wednesday, January 09, 2008 10:17:00 AM
Just goes to show you - Gadfly's comic video about b*llsh*t more important to voters than issues. I know people who can tear up and quaver at the drop of a hat and they aren't even movie actors. It was a good strategic move, however. "Awww! She really cares! How sensitive!"
I do NOT like the senator's stand on many issues and on others I believe it is "tell 'em what they want to hear" and then shaft them after the election. A time honored custom with politicians.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008 4:55:00 PM
I really loved seeing the faces of all those (Foux News, Cris Medhead on MSNBC, Hannity) last night...
One thing I really think is very important here is that, the Dems have three good candidates...I love Edwards, I will vote for him here in MN on Feb 5, I really think Obama will be very good if he gets there, and I will vote for Hillary even with her votes (Iraq, Iran vote, and her very anti-left ideas) if she wins.....
Last night, good for the Dems, bad for the GOP and media.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008 5:51:00 PM
I'd like to think I would have written this same post (more or less) no matter who was tag teamed.
Right now Senator Clinton is third on my list of the "main" candidates for the reasons WA mentioned. She's moved a little too far toward the center, she changed her mind on the war a little late (but so did many others) and I liked her much better when she was still Hillary Rodham with the hippie look. Even so, I found myself on the edge of my chair last night cheering her on.
Right now, Lou Dobbs is saying "time to get back to the issues". Amen, brother but you're a little late to the party.
My post was more about our flawed system and media control of the populace than it was about any one candidate. It just happened to be Clinton's turn in the barrel.
I was delighted to see Matthews and the whole gang fall flat on their collective faces.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008 6:06:00 PM
great week
Wednesday, January 09, 2008 6:52:00 PM
Why don't Americans run the Presidential competition like a horse race? You could have weekly race meeting in each state for a whole year.
Then, at the end or the year, if George hasn't blown up the world, you could have the Grand National with a zillion dollar prize for the person who guessed closest to the total number of votes the winner received.
At least that way, there might be a few winners among the general population for a change!
Thursday, January 10, 2008 12:46:00 AM
Granny is correct. Our system is flawed and there is really no way for the people to truly choose. People can run only if they can build a sufficiently large war chest which usually means corporate donations and backing - which means the candidate is deeply obligated to them. Candidates who fail to toe party lines get short shrift from the media and therefore do not get the necessary exposure to the public. Another thing that torques my jaws is that so much mickey-mouse bs is yapped about and little mention of real issues. A pet moderator usually guides the subject matter and carefully avoids vital issues.
Thursday, January 10, 2008 12:54:00 PM
PS: Another thing that annoys me besides the bs is so many people lean towards race or gender. I hear, "I'd vote for Hilary because we need a WOMAN in the White House" or "Vote for Obama; we need a black man...." .
Last year there was mention of getting Condoleeza to run so we could have a BLACK WOMAN in the White House. Is race and gender the only important factor at stake? How about qualifications and duty to the citizens WHOSE WILL THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT?
Thursday, January 10, 2008 12:59:00 PM