Friends and Family

This may be my last blog from the States before I leave for the University of St. Andrews this coming weekend. I hope I’ll be back in the blog game early next week, after getting settled in Scotland.

I haven’t had a posting in a while because, although there’s been much sound and fury the last couple of weeks, not much has really changed on the Democratic presidential nominating front. Barack Obama continues to lead Hillary Clinton by a small but significant amount in the pledged delegate column. In fact, Obama’s lead, according to www.realclearpolitics.com, is actually greater (168 compared to 155) than it was before Clinton’s big wins in Texas and here in Ohio earlier this month.

With no contests until the Pennsylvania primary on April 22, each campaign has spent a lot of time and effort ripping the patriotism, loyalty, electability, and veracity of their opponent. Take, for example, the events of the last few days. Former President Clinton opined (I’m paraphrasing here) that it would be really good for the country if the presidential election could be between John McCain and Senator Clinton because both of them would be perceived as unquestionably patriotic, thereby allowing the race to focus on more substantive issues. This seemingly back-handed jab at Obama drew a vociferous response from his campaign. Former Air Force Chief of Staff Merrill McPeak, an Obama senior military advisor, likened Clinton’s remarks to the red-baiting antics of the 1950s demagogue Joe McCarthy.

But that’s not all. After New Mexico Governor (and former presidential candidate and Clinton administration official), Bill Richardson endorsed Obama late last week, Clinton surrogate James Carville swung into action. Writing in the New York Times on Easter weekend, Carville compared Richardson’s embrace of Obama to Judas’s betrayal of Jesus! Notice that none of this mud-slinging comes from the candidates themselves but rather from friends and family. Notice also (as mentioned in earlier blogs) that, because of the closeness of the race and the ideological similarity between Obama and Clinton, this type of stuff is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, John McCain and the Republicans wait patiently on the sidelines, cheering on the interminable Democratic Party civil war. And, blessedly, I’m heading to Scotland, where the incessant feuding can be viewed from a distance.

A Modest Proposal

A few days after Super Tuesday II provides an opportunity for some reflection on the increasingly murky Democratic nominating process.

The first and most important conclusion to draw is that the contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is, fundamentally, in stasis. Obama bounced back yesterday and won the tiny Wyoming caucus. He’s likely to win big again in a couple of days in the Mississippi primary. After Mississippi, there are no primaries for six weeks, until Pennsylvania on April 22. Absent some big change in dynamics, Clinton is likely to win there substantially but not overwhelmingly (55-45% or less). Thereafter, you can go through the remaining nine events, stretching to June 7 and, in almost every instance, predict the winner right now with considerable certainty.

The end result, when all is said and done? Obama will hold onto a modest lead in the pledged delegate count. That lead is likely to be around 150 delegates, plus or minus. Here’s a good example of what I’m talking about. Right before last Tuesday, according to www.realclearpolitics.com, Obama led Clinton by 155 pledged delegates. Now, five days later, after Clinton’s “big” wins in Ohio, Texas (the primary), and Rhode Island and Obama’s victories in Vermont, Texas (the caucus), and Wyoming, the Obama lead, according to the same source, stands at – you guessed it – 155.

So? The battle drones on, becoming increasingly nasty and vicious. Clinton’s a “monster,” Obama’s “acting like Ken Starr.” Absent an unexpected knockout blow, the whole mess (including the Michigan and Florida controversy) gets dumped on the super delegates at the Denver convention at the end of August. Meanwhile, John McCain and the Republicans cheer on the madness from the sidelines, throwing, whenever they can, fuel on the Democratic fire. The longer the internecine knife fight continues, the more the Democrats may succeed at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Which ever side loses at Denver – African Americans and young, previously uninterested young voters on the one hand, women, working class white males on the other -- walks away embittered at the entire process.

Therefore, let me offer a modest proposal. Others have hinted, vaguely, at this general concept but these specific details are presented (again, modestly) here for the first time.
OK, here goes. The Clinton and Obama camps meet and agree (binding, written, legally enforceable language that subsequently gets published for the world to see) on the following:

Clinton gets the Democratic presidential nomination; Obama agrees to run as her Vice-President. Yikes! What’s in it for Obama? Why, given that he’s the front-runner, would he ever agree to such an arrangement? The answer…

Clinton agrees irrevocably, on a thousand Bibles, to NOT run for President in 2012 and, if Obama does run that year, wins, and runs for re-election four years later, to not run in 2016 either.

In other words, Clinton agrees to serve, if elected, as a one-term President. Would she ever agree to this? Probably not. Obama agrees potentially to serve for four long and no doubt painful years, in the same White House as Hillary Rodham and William Jefferson Clinton, building up his supposedly thin foreign policy quals and getting ready, whether the Democratic ticket is elected this year or not, for 2012. Would Obama agree to this? Probably not, at least not until after Pennsylvania, his last real opportunity to sew things up before the convention.

Does this modest proposal have any legs in the cutthroat world of Democratic Party politics, circa March 2008? Almost certainly not. John McCain, for one, definitely hopes not. And so the blood letting among Democrats is likely to continue through the last days of winter, all of spring, and a good bit of summer. What do you think?

And, Along With Everything Else, Now There's Michigan and Florida

First of all, hats off to Samir; he was the first Caterham student with the right answer on the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. He correctly identified the three (and only three!) states that switched their vote from one party to the other in these two elections. New Hampshire voted for Bush in 2000 but went for John Kerry in the following election; Iowa and New Mexico voted for Al Gore in 2000 but switched to Bush in 2004.

And now to more recent events. Hillary Clinton’s impressive wins Tuesday in Ohio and Texas have further complicated (assuming that’s possible) the Democratic Party’s nominating process. And, ironically, the increasing murkiness on the Democratic side occurred on the same night that the more orderly Republicans wrapped things up for John McCain. With Ohio and Texas (as well as Rhode Island and Vermont) behind them, Obama still leads Clinton by a small but significant count in the pledged delegate category. The same holds true in the national popular vote.

Looming closer to the political surface now is the long-suppressed question: what to do about Michigan and Florida? You will remember that both states had their delegates stripped by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for “jumping the queue.” Caterham students can relate to this – queue jumping (cutting in line) stands out as a major social no-no in the U.K. Essentially, both states moved their primaries up ahead of Super Tuesday in defiance of DNC rules. No Democratic candidates campaigned in either state and, in Michigan, Barack Obama’s name wasn’t even on the ballot. Now, with still no clear nominee in sight, the clamor is increasing to do something about these two large and important states with, between them, a combined delegate count of over 300. The question of course is: what exactly to do?

The options are essentially three in number. The first, stick with the DNC’s decision and not allow delegates from either state to be seated. (A variation of this would allow the delegates into the convention hall without being able to vote.) Second, the delegates selected in the Michigan and Florida primaries held in January could be seated and allowed to vote. The third option involves some type of “do-over,” either a caucus or primary to be held probably sometime in June.

None of these options are particularly palatable – Obama would favor the first and Clinton the second. The third, the do-over option, might be a possible compromise but, as is often the case, the devil would be in the details. These would include, first and foremost, who would pay for gearing up the voting stations, election workers, security requirements, etc. Estimates put the re-do option at about $20 million for Florida and $8-12 for Michigan. The questions quickly will become – is any re-do worth it and, if so, who will pay for it ?

Discussion Question:

What do you think the Democrats should do about Michigan and Florida? Tell us your reasoning and we will post it soon in a future blog.

The General

We’re three days away from primaries in two big states – Texas and right here in Ohio. As we await the results of Tuesday’s voting, let’s take a little time to think ahead to the general election in November.

For starters, especially if you are one of my students at Caterham, remember that the American presidential election involves a complicated concept called the Electoral College. This constitutionally mandated process usually -- but not always...see the 2000 election -- produces the same winner as the candidate that gets the most popular votes cast on Election Day. And, as we remember, each state gets an electoral vote total equal to its number of Senators and Representatives. Hence, each state (and Washington D.C. too,) gets at least three electoral votes.

In beginning to think what the 2008 electoral map might look like, it’s instructive to look back to the 2000 and the 2004 presidential elections. As we know, both elections were extremely close and both were won by Republican George W. Bush – in 2000 over the then Vice President Al Gore, and in 2004 over Massachusetts Senator John Kerry. To get us started, blog readers, think about and get back to me on the following question: How many states switched their electoral allegiance from 2000 to 2004, and which ones were they? We’ll recognize the first correct respondent in the next blog. HINT: There aren’t many. Once we have a good idea of states that appear solidly red (Republican), solidly blue (Democratic), and somewhere in between, we can begin to make some guesses as to what lies ahead in November.