Android's Dungeon
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Reap What You Sow
"For the second time in three days, Sen. Hillary Clinton told reporters that the pledged delegates awarded based on vote totals in their state are not bound to abide by election results."-- CNN, March 26.
"Prince George's County Executive Jack B. Johnson, a Democratic convention delegate pledged to support Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, said yesterday...that he now plans to support Obama at the August convention."-- Washington Post, May 13.
Labels: obama
¶ 5/13/2008 09:13:00 AM 0 Comments
Friday, May 09, 2008
An Open Letter to Kathleen Kennedy Townsend
I tried sending the following to the e-mail address listed on Kathleen Kennedy Townsend's web site, but it got bounced back. So I'm posting it here as an open letter.
-----
Dear Ms. Townsend:
I'm not usually in the habit of taking advice from Peggy Noonan columns. But according to her column today, a Democratic superdelegate said that you are one of the few people who can convince Senator Clinton that the primary race needs to come to a close.
In yesterday's USA Today, Senator Clinton referred to "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans". Whether intentionally or not, this statement is the ugliest playing of the race card I've seen at the national level in years. To give you an idea of how ugly things have gotten, google "white, hard-working". The first three hits are references to her comments. The fourth is a petition for the "National Socialist American Workers Party".
As a recently selected superdelegate, you have the power to begin to help heal these ugly divisions. As a fellow Marylander and someone who has voted for you multiple times, I urge you to endorse Senator Obama.
Respectfully,
Jon Grantham
University Park, MD
-----
Dear Ms. Townsend:
I'm not usually in the habit of taking advice from Peggy Noonan columns. But according to her column today, a Democratic superdelegate said that you are one of the few people who can convince Senator Clinton that the primary race needs to come to a close.
In yesterday's USA Today, Senator Clinton referred to "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans". Whether intentionally or not, this statement is the ugliest playing of the race card I've seen at the national level in years. To give you an idea of how ugly things have gotten, google "white, hard-working". The first three hits are references to her comments. The fourth is a petition for the "National Socialist American Workers Party".
As a recently selected superdelegate, you have the power to begin to help heal these ugly divisions. As a fellow Marylander and someone who has voted for you multiple times, I urge you to endorse Senator Obama.
Respectfully,
Jon Grantham
University Park, MD
Labels: obama
¶ 5/09/2008 11:33:00 AM 0 Comments
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Give Up Already!
No, not Hillary. I'm talking about the media. As the Democratic nominating process drags on (and on and on...), it becomes more and more clear that the media is looking for a way to keep alive the idea that Hillary might win. Why? Entertainment value? I'm not sure.
Consider the following passage from today's Washington Post:
No, it doesn't. Looking at Wikipedia, WV, KY and PR combine to offer 134 pledged delegates. Let's assume Hillary wins those primaries by 10% and wins the delegates by a similar proportion. The latter is a reasonable assumption, but the delegate selection rules are a little bit wacky. Obama has been a little bit better about figuring them out, but it probably won't matter here. That would give her a 74-60 advantage (rounding in her favor). Similarly, let's give Obama a 10% advantage in "his" primaries, which are worth a total of 202 delegates. That's fairly generous to Hillary, since he has racked up bigger margins of victory, on average, so far. That puts him ahead with those delegates 111-91 (again rounding in her favor).
So we come to Indiana. Let's again give her the "decisive" 9% victory she got in Pennsylvania. (You may have thought it was 10%, but the media don't understand rounding.) This time we'll round in Obama's favor, which means she ends up winning the Indiana delegates 39-33.
So if Hillary wins the one remaining "battleground", then she'll end up with 204 delegates. Obama, on the other hand, would get...204 delegates. Wow, that just shows how close the race is, doesn't it?
Except it's not. Obama has a lead of about 130 delegates even including Hillary's slight edge in superdelegates. These figures would get him about 100 delegates away from the nomination, with about 300 superdelegates left to endorse. Who thinks more than two-thirds of the superdelegates would be willing to ignore Obama's lead in pledged delegates? Who thinks more than two-thirds of the superdelegates would vote for Hillary even if everything else was tied?
The Washington Post isn't the only offender. Time calls Indiana the "next stop". What about North Carolina, which votes the same day? Well, it's a smaller state, right? Uh, no. Well, it has fewer delegates because of wacky rules, right? Uh, no. It has 43 more. Well, it doesn't count because it's not going to vote for the Democrats in the fall. Hmm, according to the same Time article, "It's a state that hasn't voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1964..." North Carolina at least voted for Carter in '76.
So basically Indiana matters because it has the most dramatic tension. Just remember: none of this coverage is about who is going to be the nominee (it's Obama). All of it is about giving the news media something to talk about for the next two weeks.
Consider the following passage from today's Washington Post:
Clinton expects victories in West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico. Obama's team expects to win Oregon, North Carolina, Montana, South Dakota and Guam. That makes Indiana the critical battleground.
No, it doesn't. Looking at Wikipedia, WV, KY and PR combine to offer 134 pledged delegates. Let's assume Hillary wins those primaries by 10% and wins the delegates by a similar proportion. The latter is a reasonable assumption, but the delegate selection rules are a little bit wacky. Obama has been a little bit better about figuring them out, but it probably won't matter here. That would give her a 74-60 advantage (rounding in her favor). Similarly, let's give Obama a 10% advantage in "his" primaries, which are worth a total of 202 delegates. That's fairly generous to Hillary, since he has racked up bigger margins of victory, on average, so far. That puts him ahead with those delegates 111-91 (again rounding in her favor).
So we come to Indiana. Let's again give her the "decisive" 9% victory she got in Pennsylvania. (You may have thought it was 10%, but the media don't understand rounding.) This time we'll round in Obama's favor, which means she ends up winning the Indiana delegates 39-33.
So if Hillary wins the one remaining "battleground", then she'll end up with 204 delegates. Obama, on the other hand, would get...204 delegates. Wow, that just shows how close the race is, doesn't it?
Except it's not. Obama has a lead of about 130 delegates even including Hillary's slight edge in superdelegates. These figures would get him about 100 delegates away from the nomination, with about 300 superdelegates left to endorse. Who thinks more than two-thirds of the superdelegates would be willing to ignore Obama's lead in pledged delegates? Who thinks more than two-thirds of the superdelegates would vote for Hillary even if everything else was tied?
The Washington Post isn't the only offender. Time calls Indiana the "next stop". What about North Carolina, which votes the same day? Well, it's a smaller state, right? Uh, no. Well, it has fewer delegates because of wacky rules, right? Uh, no. It has 43 more. Well, it doesn't count because it's not going to vote for the Democrats in the fall. Hmm, according to the same Time article, "It's a state that hasn't voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1964..." North Carolina at least voted for Carter in '76.
So basically Indiana matters because it has the most dramatic tension. Just remember: none of this coverage is about who is going to be the nominee (it's Obama). All of it is about giving the news media something to talk about for the next two weeks.
Labels: obama
¶ 4/23/2008 06:33:00 PM 0 Comments
Sunday, March 30, 2008
And You Want to Run My Economy?
So I read an article on politico.com today saying that Hillary Clinton is not paying her campaign bills promptly. Apparently some of this is standard practice -- consultants defer getting paid in the heat of the campaign. I assume there's some sort of system where candidates raise money even after they've dropped out to make good on these bills -- or maybe the consultants are willing to take the risk of not getting paid in that case.
But it appears that Hillary's campaign has broken new ground in not paying their bills.
I know one reason Obama doesn't have the money problems Hillary has is that he has raised a lot more money than she has. And I don't want to see the election necessarily go to the candidate with the most money. But in an election where all the remaining candidates are senators, probably the best test of executive experience is a look at the management of their respective campaigns. Forget 3 AM phone calls --- I'm more worried about a candidate who won't answer the phone when her creditors call.
But it appears that Hillary's campaign has broken new ground in not paying their bills.
"She owed Iowa’s Sioux City Art Center Board of Trustees $3,500 for catering and venue costs, New Hampshire’s Winnacunnet Cooperative School District $4,400 in event costs..."Really? Stiffing an art center and a school district? I guess since she doesn't need their votes right now, they can wait.
I know one reason Obama doesn't have the money problems Hillary has is that he has raised a lot more money than she has. And I don't want to see the election necessarily go to the candidate with the most money. But in an election where all the remaining candidates are senators, probably the best test of executive experience is a look at the management of their respective campaigns. Forget 3 AM phone calls --- I'm more worried about a candidate who won't answer the phone when her creditors call.
Labels: obama
¶ 3/30/2008 01:27:00 PM 0 Comments
Monday, March 24, 2008
Never Go Against the Family
Apparently, Bill Richardson's endorsement last Friday of Barack Obama violated a sacred trust in American politics. No, not that you should endorse the candidate you feel is best for the country -- rather, you should endorse the candidate whose husband gave you two high-level appointments. Does this make Richardson a new Benedict Arnold?
No, try Judas, according to James Carville. (Wait, Which candidate is Jesus?) Even Richardson said that his ties to the Clintons almost led him to endorse Hillary.
What kind of a country are we living in where loyalty to a family is supposed to trump everything else? One governed by dynastic politics. No matter how qualified Hillary may be, the idea of handing the country over to the same 2 families for 24 years should give anybody pause. The Richardson endorsement is an excellent example of what's wrong with turning the two-party system into the two-family system. What once was a meritocracy can descend into an aristocracy.
No, try Judas, according to James Carville. (Wait, Which candidate is Jesus?) Even Richardson said that his ties to the Clintons almost led him to endorse Hillary.
What kind of a country are we living in where loyalty to a family is supposed to trump everything else? One governed by dynastic politics. No matter how qualified Hillary may be, the idea of handing the country over to the same 2 families for 24 years should give anybody pause. The Richardson endorsement is an excellent example of what's wrong with turning the two-party system into the two-family system. What once was a meritocracy can descend into an aristocracy.
Labels: obama
¶ 3/24/2008 12:22:00 PM 0 Comments
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
The 10% Vote
I was watching another clip of a Republican talking about "Barack Hussein Obama" and wondering why they thought the technique of using his middle name would work. After all, it doesn't take much effort to find out, 1) he's named after his father and 2) he's a Christian.
But I was reminded of something I read several years ago. Someone asked one of the movie studios why they put quotes from reviewers you've never heard of before on movie ads. (For example, Sunday's Post had an add for "Jumper" noting that Total Film said "It's 'BOURNE' Meets 'The MATRIX.'" Total Film is "the United Kingdom's second best-selling film magazine," according to Wikipedia.) The answer (I'm paraphrasing from memory) is that their research has shown that 10% of moviegoers will pick a movie based on a quote about that film -- even if the source of that quote has no credibility. This is why Sony got caught making up quotes a few years ago.
So I realized -- the "Hussein" jibes are for that same 10% of the population. Because of the most gullible segment of our population, we will have to endure silly attempts to make Americans believe that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim or Saddam Hussein's cousin or whatever. Clearly, if you're a reader of this site, you're too discerning to fall for that. But maybe Obama needs to fight back. Perhaps with posters that say "We must elect President Obama -- Time Magazine*"
*(The reader comments part of their web site, that is.)
But I was reminded of something I read several years ago. Someone asked one of the movie studios why they put quotes from reviewers you've never heard of before on movie ads. (For example, Sunday's Post had an add for "Jumper" noting that Total Film said "It's 'BOURNE' Meets 'The MATRIX.'" Total Film is "the United Kingdom's second best-selling film magazine," according to Wikipedia.) The answer (I'm paraphrasing from memory) is that their research has shown that 10% of moviegoers will pick a movie based on a quote about that film -- even if the source of that quote has no credibility. This is why Sony got caught making up quotes a few years ago.
So I realized -- the "Hussein" jibes are for that same 10% of the population. Because of the most gullible segment of our population, we will have to endure silly attempts to make Americans believe that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim or Saddam Hussein's cousin or whatever. Clearly, if you're a reader of this site, you're too discerning to fall for that. But maybe Obama needs to fight back. Perhaps with posters that say "We must elect President Obama -- Time Magazine*"
*(The reader comments part of their web site, that is.)
Labels: obama
¶ 3/04/2008 08:10:00 AM 0 Comments
Monday, February 11, 2008
The Android's Dungeon Endorses...
Well, tomorrow is the Maryland primary, and I'm keeping up a certain symmetry by being out in California for the Maryland primary, just like I was in Maryland for the California primary. My next stop apparently should be California, Maryland.
I did, however, get my absentee ballot in well ahead of time. For the Democratic presidential nomination, the Android's Dungeon endorses Barack Obama. I really like Obama, so I have a number of reasons, but I should go eat breakfast and get to work, so I'll just highlight two of them.
*Dynastic politics. As much as I liked Al Gore in 2000, he was a Senator's son. As much as I was unenthusiastic about John Kerry in 2004, he was the son of a federal government employee. I believe it is important for the health of our democracy to elect people from different families...fresh blood, if you will. As qualified as 'legacy' candidates sometimes are (and sometimes aren't), I think we need to reinforce the idea that you don't have to be related to someone famous to become president. I don't relish the idea of a race between a president's wife and an admiral's son.
*Integrity. God bless Bill Clinton, but the Clintons have come to stand for the idea that, "Hey, if the Republicans will do anything to win an election, we have to be prepared to as well." Think I'm exaggerating? The New Republic, in an editorial that reminds us they're still not sure whom to endorse says,
They're referring to Hillary's, "I agree with the decision not to count Michigan and Florida...oh, wait, I won? That changes things," plan.
So I've cast my absentee ballot for Obama, and I encourage readers who are eligible to cast future votes for him to do so. It's an interesting election year; maybe we can avoid making it too interesting (although a deadlocked convention would be fascinating...).
I did, however, get my absentee ballot in well ahead of time. For the Democratic presidential nomination, the Android's Dungeon endorses Barack Obama. I really like Obama, so I have a number of reasons, but I should go eat breakfast and get to work, so I'll just highlight two of them.
*Dynastic politics. As much as I liked Al Gore in 2000, he was a Senator's son. As much as I was unenthusiastic about John Kerry in 2004, he was the son of a federal government employee. I believe it is important for the health of our democracy to elect people from different families...fresh blood, if you will. As qualified as 'legacy' candidates sometimes are (and sometimes aren't), I think we need to reinforce the idea that you don't have to be related to someone famous to become president. I don't relish the idea of a race between a president's wife and an admiral's son.
*Integrity. God bless Bill Clinton, but the Clintons have come to stand for the idea that, "Hey, if the Republicans will do anything to win an election, we have to be prepared to as well." Think I'm exaggerating? The New Republic, in an editorial that reminds us they're still not sure whom to endorse says,
Looking at their plight with any detachment, it is even possible to develop a measure of sympathy for the Clintons. Or it was, anyway, right up until the point at which Hillary threatened to steal the nomination.
They're referring to Hillary's, "I agree with the decision not to count Michigan and Florida...oh, wait, I won? That changes things," plan.
So I've cast my absentee ballot for Obama, and I encourage readers who are eligible to cast future votes for him to do so. It's an interesting election year; maybe we can avoid making it too interesting (although a deadlocked convention would be fascinating...).
Labels: obama
¶ 2/11/2008 10:23:00 AM 0 Comments
