Fast Campaign Developments
Things are happening fast. Super Tuesday voting sent a message to Romney and he has now decided to drop out, confirming McCain will be the Republican nominee. Whether Huckabee is making a sufficient showing to get a VP nod remains to be seen.
For the Democrats, Super Tuesday showed the race is close with Obama having gained much ground. I just realized Washington State will actually be picking Democratic delegates by the caucuses this Saturday, rather than by the primary election on the 19th, so I will be going to my caucus and supporting Obama. Obama will be in Seattle for an appearance tomorrow. It would be exciting to see him, but I have a schedule conflict.
The primary election on the 19th may in some ways be just a popularity contest, but it also has more relevant aspects. Popularity can equate with electability and thereby help with fund raising. It can also help influence the votes of the super delegates at the national convention. It will be interesting to make comparisons between the caucus and election results, both on turnout and on results. The primary ballots include some new and interesting aspects. For the first time. Washington State voters will have to take an oath of political party affiliation in order to vote. The affiliation will not be kept private. The Democratic party oath says, "I consider myself to be a Democrat", while the Republican one says, "I am a member of the Republican Party". I wonder how many voters will decide not to vote, rather than taking either oath. Also, there is no mail service the Monday before the election and I wonder how many absentee ballots deposited in mailboxes on Monday will not be counted.
posted by Tom Blake | 11:36 AM
3 Comments:
My sister Jane who lives in Lynnwood has been complaining to me for some time that the Democratic Party is not using the primary to pick its delegates, and instead is using the caucus. She thinks that is unfair. I'm not sure why, maybe because independents and moderate Democrats will vote in the primary, but only fanatical Democrats care enough to show up at a caucus. Fanatical people like you, Tom.
I look forward to comparing the results of the Washinton caucus with the Washington primary. I think it is very likely the caucus will pick Obama and the primary will pick Clinton.
I believe the Democratic caucus plays a similar role as the Republican religious right.
My hope that the November election is between Clinton and McCain looks ever more likely. That will only bode well for the country.
John from Phoenix
Well John, let me see if I have accurately determined the thrust of your comment, direct and implied.
I am a fanatic. Democrats who participate in the caucus process are fanatics. The Republican Religious Right are Fanatics. The caucus process is bad. Primary elections are good, particularly if moderates and independents [and presumably crossover voters trying to nominate a bad candidate] can participate either without having to identify a party allegiance or else being able to lie about party allegiance without penalty. Hillary Clinton is bad. John McCain is good.
Now let me address these views.
Fanatic comes from the Latin word for temple, and means a person whose enthusiasm is akin to religious fervor - based on faith, more than reason. Many people interested in politics are enthusiastic about their views, regardless of where they fall on the political compass. There are enthusiastic moderates; you may be one of them. But enthusiasm is not fanaticism. I am not a fanatic. I have not met any fanatics at Democratic caucuses. You are not a fanatic. The Religious Right are fanatics and you would meet them at Republican caucuses if you attend them. These are the people you have said hijacked the Republican Party, causing you to become a Republican so you can vote for moderates.
I wonder whether you would go to a Republican caucus as a moderate and argue your views in front of the Religious hijackers, or whether you would consider it hopeless. It is easier for you to vote secretly and quietly in a primary. For me, Democratic caucus goers are a joy, people who share my progressive views but may differ on preference of candidate to carry those views forward. We talk, listen and vote - an uplifting process.
The open primaries we grew up with here in Washington State are not good. A political party should have the right to require that those who participate in selecting the candidates of that party declare an appropriate connection to the views of the party and agree not to participate in the selection process of any other political party, just as is required for caucus participation. Primary voting is quicker, private and non-interactive, so the participation number will be higher and the voters will generally be less enthusiastic than caucus goers. Having both this year will allow Washington State Democrats to measure candidate support both ways. Depending on the analysis of participation and results, the Democrats may one day decide to have candidates chosen by the primary. But this is only the first year of this type closed primary voting here in Washington State, so a few years experience may be needed.
In choosing between two Presidential candidates, a voter may consider personal aspects of the individuals and their positions on the issues. For me as an enthusiastic Democrat, this is easy, since the positions of Democratic candidates are always much more in agreement with my positions than are those of the Republicans, and I consider the issue positions to be of paramount importance. So I always vote for the Democrat.
I wonder how you make your choice in the Presidential election. You seem to consider yourself a somewhat enthusiastic moderate Republican, and you may consider personal aspects of a candidate to be almost as important as issue positions. So I suppose you begin with the idea you will vote for the Republican, and then you verify the person is not too far to the right on the issues that matter most to you, and finally you determine whether the personal aspects work for you. McCain has been your choice all the way. I know he has been your Senator for a long time and I wonder if you have ever disagreed with some votes he has made in the Senate. I also wonder whether his voting record is actually less in accord with your views on the issues than the voting record of Clinton and Obama. I also wonder what you consider the personal strengths of McCain would be as President, and what would be the weaknesses of Clinton and Obama.
Tom,
Communication is a very fragile thing. Thank you for this entry that shows your understanding of my views is wrong in some very fundamental aspects. I think I have been very clear in communicating my views, and obviously I have failed, again in some aspects. Lets go through your initial points and see what my views really are.
1. Tom and other Democrats who attend caucuses are fanatics. YES Anybody who wants to devote two hours on a Saturday to a political process is a fanatic or at least a political junkee. Normal people don't do that. I'll tell you how I spent my Saturday: I was up at 6:00 AM; took the dog for a hike up Shaw Butte near my house (3 miles, 750 feet elevation change); fixed my wife and me some breakfast; read the newspaper and did the crosword puzzle; worked off two hours of my weekend chore list; went to my grandson's football game; took a 15 minute nap; helped my wife prepare for our dinner guests; entertained our guests and tried to steer the conversation away from the Time mag cover that was on the coffee table and that shows Clinton & Obama nose to nose because the two men hate both of them - not sure about the women; went to bed. A couple of weeks ago, I spent two minutes voting in the Arizona primary, one minute filling out the early ballot for me and one minute for my wife. I think that is how most normal people treat the political process. So the point is that the caucuses don't represent the non-fanatical but still loyal members of the party.
2. The Republican Religious Right are fanatics. YES
3. The caucus process is bad. YES because the caucus does not represent the non-fantical majority of the party. Case in point: 37 people in your precinct determined the outcome for everyone else.
4. The primary process is good because of the independent and crossover voters. NO I have repeatedly said that Arizona's closed primaries represent the correct process. My sister Jane likes the blanket primary, but I don't. I don't like the blanket primary nor the open primary: the idea that an independent can opt for either a Democratic or Republican ballot (Arizona does not allow that either).
5. Hillary Clinton is bad. NO If she is running for President in November, I will vote for her. My only objection to her in the past is that she could not beat a right wing Republican candidate because she is hated by so many people. I thinks hands down Hillary would be the best president for the country. But I would not want the Democrats to choose her to run against a right wing Republican such as Huckabee or Fred Thompson. But now that it looks like McCain will be the candidate, I want Clinton to run. Because the fallback in the case of a likely Hillary defeat is acceptable to me. If Huckabee surges, then I would have to reconsider, and root for an Obama candidacy, just to block Huckabee. If McCain chooses Huckabee as running mate, then I'm not sure whom I root for. Bottom line though, is Clinton is far and away the best choice to be President.
6. John McCain is good. YES because he is pulling the Republican Party to the center and that is good for the country.
I will also comment on your last paragraph:
7. I consider personal aspects of candidates to be almost as important as issues. NO The last time I voted on personal aspects was when I voted for John F Kennedy. Hillary is actually hard to love, but I support her because her candidacy has defined the Democratic positions on the issues. Obama is the Democratic candidate running on style and saying "me too" to Clinton's positions. The Republicans appear to have selected McCain even though he is certainly not loved. He is in the lead because of the issues. He may be there because of negative reactions to the issues as put forth by the right wing Republicans for the last seven years, but his lead is based on issues. Obama and Huckabee are running on personal aspects, charisma and vague feelings of faith either in the future for Obama or in Christian fervor for Huckabee.
8. As a Republican, I have always supported McCain. YES but as I indicated above, he is my second choice for President.
9. Have I disagreed with his positions. YES I do not like McCain's voting record on the environment, but it is far better than many other Republicans. Clinton, based on her husband's actions for the environment in his last day's in office would most likely be far better than McCain. Obama is an unknown in this and everything else.
10. McCain's personal strengths: Leadership and independence of party. Like Clinton would be a good representative on the world stage. Obama might have to go through the same learning curve that JFK did.
11. Weaknesses: Clinton: the animosity about a third of the country holds for her. Obama: don't know enough about him. Depends a lot on whom he picks to mentor him into the presidency. I cannot imagine he would be as big a bumbler as Geore W. McCain: his debt to the religious right may cause him once again to waffle on his own independence.
Hope this sets you straight on my positions.
John from Phoenix
Post a Comment
<< Home