Re: Primary Pathos

First off: yes, I am posting at 6am on a Saturday morning, and no, that does not make me a blogger extraordinaire. I had to drive a friend to the airport at 4am, and when I got back I decided to check Policy Hippo instead of going back to sleep. Now, I do plan on going back to sleep at some point this morning. But now is not the time for sleep. Now is the time... to blog.

My disagreement is twofold. First, I disagree that we can completely separate the citizens from the politicians who voted to move the primary. The fundamental principle of democracy is that politicians are held accountable to the citizens for the decisions that make. But that accountability goes both ways - the citizens are thus accountable for the decisions that their elected representatives make. If the representatives are not making good decisions, it's because the citizens aren't doing their job of keeping their representatives in check. Ultimately, good policy and good government arises from an informed and engaged electorate, a fact for which no amount of wonky GAO reports or management reform or multi-year budgeting can compensate. If the voters in FL and MI are complaining that their elected representatives aren't adequately representing their will, they have no one to blame but themselves.

My guess, however, is that the voters supported the early elections, even if it meant breaking the rules. It's a bit like us in 2008 blaming the invasion of Iraq on Bush. Sure, he pulled the trigger so to speak, but we let it happen. We supported it at the time, and hell, even if we didn't, the fact is is that we reelected the guy.

When I traveled around Europe, I, like many other American tourists, was given a hard time and often hassled about our inane and short-sighted foreign policy. Of course, I would tell my critic that it wasn't me, that I voted for Gore and Kerry, and that I campaigned against Bush in both elections. But that usually wasn't enough to get me off the hook, nor should it be. As an American, I bear responsibility for the actions and policies of my elected representatives. That is a fundamental principle of democracy, and, with all of FL and MI's blather about voting and representation, perhaps they should have cared as much about their role as citizens and voters when they put those policymakers in office. Remember: a democracy, if you can keep it.

My second point of disagreement was the main subject of my previous posts: that the voters were represented, and did have a say, because they altered the narrative, and thus the dynamic of the race.

Last point: the delegate race is not close, even if you include FL (I don't see how you could include MI given that Obama wasn't even on the ballot, and if they had a do-over he'd most likely win it anyway). Lemme give you an example of just how hard it would be for Hillary to pull ahead. Currently, Obama has about 170 more pledged delegates than Hillary. You count FL, and that deficit decreases to 130. At first blush, doesn't seem insurmountable at all. But consider the fact that Hillary's March 4th "blowout" netted her a grand total of... about five delegates. Obama then went on to net two delegates in WY and five in MS.

Now, Hillary is betting all her chips on PA, but not because it could save her, because nothing really can. After all, a 60% win in PA only nets her about 32 delegates, which still leaves her about 100 short of Obama. The reason she's putting it all on PA is that she's gotta move her chips in somewhere, and all the other states look even worse for her. North Carolina (115), the biggest state after PA (158), will probably go for Obama, as well as Oregon (52). But in order for her to catch up to him in pledged delegates, she's gotta run the board with 55-60% wins in all the remaining states, including NC and OR. That would be hard for any campaign, Obama's included, but let's also keep in mind that Hillary has only exceeded the 20 point margin twice: Arkansas and Oklahoma. Hell, she didn't even get 60% of the vote in New York!

Basically, if we start from the premise that the leader of the pledged delegate count should win, then, barring Obama being caught with a dead girl or live boy, there is no way that she can win. Even if FL is included. Hell, give her the 18 delegate margin in MI too. Doesn't matter.

This thing's over.

So now what happens? Well, Obama will be the nominee, and he'll then seat the FL and MI delegations because they no longer matter. Seriously, this whole FL and MI is a moot point, only brought up by the Hillary campaign because it creates the impression that it might actually matter. And if something that matters isn't resolved yet, then the race can't be over, can it?

See how well that works?