Sunday, February 10, 2008

CW, Superdelegates and Divides

Conventional wisdom.... what we fall back on to fortify our arguments, to prop up our misconceptions, to put the coup de grace to dissent.

Forget some CW in this 2008 election season, as Ellen Goodman points out, "Conventional wisdom fails to explain anything about Election 2008." (Post-Gazette)

"It'll Be All Over by February 6." Not according to Mike Huckabee. And only in Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's dreams.

"Kennedys are Kingmakers." Why then didn't Obama carry Massachusetts, or California? Maybe kingmakers if they can deliver the majority of the worst idea the Democratic Party ever had, superdelegates. That remains to be seen.

"Southern White Men Won't Vote for a Black President." Well.... Georgia white men voted 48 percent for Obama. But then, as Goodman pointed out, perhaps it just proves that "Southern white men still won't vote for a woman."

"Evangelicals Vote in Lockstep." This time they scattered to GOP candidates Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and John McCain.

"Money Uber Alles." After spending $35 million of his own money, the departing Romney begs to differ. Nice to know, though, that the presidency isn't for sale to the highest bidder.

"Dittoheads Rule." Far right talking heads savaged McCain and Republicans yawned.

"The Death of the Nominating Convention." Get your popcorn ready, with the Democrats it looks like a nominating fight to the finish.

When it comes to the delegate dead heat between Clinton and Obama that is hurtling headlong toward a nominating convention, Tad Devine advises "Superdelegates, Back Off." (NYTimes)

He admonishes these superdelegates "to stop pledging themselves to either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama.... If the superdelegates determine the party's nominee before primary and caucus voters have rendered a clear verdict, Democrats risk losing the trust" of the voters.

Actually, they risk a rebellion and the disaffection of the many blacks and women who see this as their moment. Luckily, there is The Decider's monstrous record, and the specter of more with his ideological replacement McCain, to provide the unifying glue. But, will this be enough?

Frank Rich thinks until then, "Next Up for the Democrats: Civil War." (NYTimes)

Reporting on Hillary Clinton's paid-for hour in the run-up to Super Tuesday on the Hallmark Channel, plus satellite TV hookups for assemblies of coast-to-coast supporters, Rich said he was given a "naked preview of how nastily the Clintons will fight, whatever the collateral damage to the Democratic Party, in the endgame to come."

He points out that after over-playing their hand trying to scare off white voters by framing Obama as the "ghettoized-cocaine-user" and Jesse Jackson redux.... and in the process alienating many black voters.... they abandoned black America and redoubled efforts to pander to the Hispanic population, especially in delegate-rich California.

The makeup of the Hallmark audience.... few blacks.... with many Hispanic canned-question askers.... no blacks.... brought this forcefully home. Leaving no Hispanic stone unturned, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of LA had a cameo, and one of the satellite meetings was held in the National Hispanic Cultural Center in Albuquerque.

Earlier, in an attempt to divide the voters and reinforce their racial game plan, Clinton's pollster told The New Yorker that Hispanic voters have "not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates,".... followed by Hillary telling Tim Russert in a debate that her pollster was "making a historical statement."

As Rich points out, this "wasn't an accurate statement, historical or otherwise. It was a lie, and a bigoted lie at that....." For example, all three black members of congress from the LA area won in heavily Latino districts. And in the 1990s, Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk received more than 70 percent of the Hispanic vote.

Now comes Texas.... what despicable racial ploys will the Clintons unleash in that heavily Hispanic state before the March 4 primary contest?

And, is the Democratic Party in free-fall toward for a race-tinged brawl and superdelegate bullying at their convention some nine weeks before Election Day?.... a non-"Hallmark moment?"

Democratic voters will demand a just and representative convention, where superdelegates vote their constitutents' preferences.... that's CW you can take to the polls.


Mark in Austin said...

Back in 2002, Tony Sanchez lost to Rick Perry something like 60-40 in the Gov's race. Tony is the richest Latino in the US - oil, banking, ranching, construction, real estate, you name it. A billonaire. The Ds were counting on a big chicano vote and did not get it. There was a detailed study, later, maybe by UT, but I cannot find it. The results were that corrected for income levels, the TX hispanic vote is identical to its Anglo vote.

This is not true for the black vote, which is D at every income level. The poorest hispanics are of course in the RG Valley. They are the ones who vote reliably D, if they vote at all. HRC has shown strong support among poor anglos. She should do well in the Valley, but if the Machine sits on its hands, as they may, the chicano turnout will not hit 20% down there. It just never happens without Machine support.

The income levels of chicanos skew lower than Anglos. So if HRC holds 2-1 among Anglos under $50k, she will do as well among similarly situated chicanos, of whom there are proportionately more, according to conventional reasoning.

CA Latinos swung into being bloc D voters in the 90s. TX chicanos actually are likely to vote 40% R, because unlike poor persons, wealthier chicanos
vote in big numbers, and their voting here is like similarly situated Anglos.

Truth Hunter said...

Mark in Austin, Thanks for your astute comments on the makeup of the Texas vote. By the Machine, I guess you mean the Dem Machine.... and they would sit on their hands because.....?

So, Texas historically votes more along poor-rich lines than race. Interesting.

Let's see if that holds on March 4.

Mark in Austin said...

Truth, The only political machine in TX is in the Rio Grande Valley, it is D, and it has its own raison d'etre.

If the object of the RGV Machine's affection is the presumptive D candidate for US Senate, Col. Rick Noriega, it may forego pushing turnout in the Primary if it thinks BHO is better for Noriega than HRC, in November.

It can then claim it kept peace in the Party.
You should also know that on the evening of the Primary we hold caucuses, just like IA. 126 delegates come out of the Primary and 67 from the Caucus. 35 are unpledged supers. The Caucus results could nullify the Primary
results. Really.

Truth Hunter said...

Mark in Austin, Very interesting. Truly.... "all politics is local."

I understand Hillary has already given up on today's vote and headed for Texas.... lucky you. :>)