While I was sitting at the Stewart-Newburgh terminal last Monday morning, I saw on the television that Ralph Nader has once again thrown his hat into the presidential ring. At first I thought of it as another Quixotic campaign by this consumer advocate the 70s forgot, but then I got to thinking about the 2000 election, and how some accused Nader of siphoning enough votes off of Gore to sway the election (even though the statistics never backed up this claim). In 2004, Nader's presidential campaign had lost a lot of tractions because of this perception.But today, would anyone support Nader for president. I mean, isn't the guy a modern day Pat Paulsen?
Not if Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic Party nomination for president.
Even if Clinton carries both Ohio and Texas this Tuesday and then later gets Pennsylvania, she will not gain enough of a margin of victory to make a difference between hers and Barack Obama's delegate count. Since the Democratic party splits their delegates proportionally, in Ohio the most Clinton can hope for, considering recent polls is a +5 delegate advantage. Consider the fact that Obama and Clinton are in a dead heat in Texas, and that Texas uses a combination primary-caucus system (Obama does well in caucuses), and expect, at best, a wash or an advantage of less than +5 delegates. So, realistically, the best Clinton can hope for is to close the delegate gap of around 100 behind Obama down to 90. Expecting a slim margin of victory, can Clinton make two slim wins justify hanging on until the Pennsylvania primary next month?
And then there are Rhode Island, Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi, Indiana, North Carolina, Nebraska, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota to consider. Smaller states where Obama has been picking up by 15-20% margins. Any gains she makes in Texas, Ohio, or PA will be erased by these smaller primaries.
By the time of the convention, if Clinton is still in the race behind Obama by about the same (or more) amount of delegates, her only hope to victory will be to appeal to the superdelegates and Edwards (who has yet to determine which candidate to support with his 26 delegates). If the Democratic Convention ends up cancelling out the will of the people and instead lets the party 'elders' decide Clinton is the better nominee, it will demoralize and injure the Democratic Party.
And here's where Nader steps in, just in time to remind the disenchanted Obamaniacs and leftists that Clinton is 'Republican-Lite', just as he did to Gore back in 2000. The hurt Nader could put on Clinton's popular support will not cause her to lose states like California or New York, but it could mean losing Ohio, Missouri, and Florida, and catapult McCain into the White House.
Before the Nader equation, party elders might have been considering supporting Clinton despite her poor showing in the primary. With Nader, their need to win in 2009 will overweigh their support for the Clinton family.
Maybe Nader isn't just another Don Quiote this time around. Maybe his campaign is a shrewd play to ensure Obama wins the Democratic Nomination....
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Who will lose the 2008 election? Boomers.
From Bill Clinton's sexual indiscretions to George W. Bush's gross incompetence, Baby Boomers may have ran their course in presidential politics.
Barring a miracle in Texas & Ohio, or a Democratic Convention that will make the one from 1968 look civilized, Clinton will not receive the Democratic nomination for president. This leaves Barack Obama as the likely nominee for the Democrats. On the Republican side, the contest was settled weeks ago when Mitt Romney, another Baby Boomer, suspended his campaign and later endorsed John McCain as Republican nominee for president.
Come November, it is most likely that the voters will be faced with a choice between Barack Obama, a member of Generation X, or John McCain, a member of the Silent Generation, and, most likely, the last of his generation with a shot at the presidency.
Gen Xers, or 13ers, as the generation is named by Neil Howe and William Strauss, were born between 1961-1982. Their childhood featured a time in history when having children was discouraged, efforts to protect children were at their weakest, and funding to support their upbringing and general welfare was its thinnest. Many in this generation were exposed early in life to the realities of the world such as divorce, sexuality, drugs, and violence.
Recently Michelle Obama, wife of the presidential candidate, was quoted as saying, "For the first time in my adult life, I can say I'm proud to be an American." This quote has led to many Right-Wing talking points these past days. But let's consider the Xer's viewpoint of a history of politics in the USA since 1961. From a political perspective, Xers are too young to remember Kennedy, which means they became aware of, first, the Johnson admin. ending with the 1968 Democratic Convention disaster. Next Nixon and Watergate. Then Ford and Carter. Next Reagan and Bush. Say what you might (depending on which side of the political fence you site), but this is the time when Xers came of age and went out into the workforce only to find out that all the well-paying jobs the Boomers enjoyed had dried up while our gov't took on massive debt. And then came Clinton and Bush, the Boomer presidents, and the culture wars.
Is it a small wonder that Xers don't trust the gov't or any institution like the Boomers, Greatest Generation, or the Silents do/did? Xers, liberal or conservative, believe that institutions in their current state cannot solve problems. Liberal Xers hate waste and seek to streamline the government efficiently (some even leaning technocrat - see Bloomberg's popularity in NYC), while conservative Xers lean to a libertarian perspective that the governtment that governs least governs best. For these Xers, Ron Paul is the epitome of their ideas on governing. Ultimately, the libertarian position is bound to lose, just as Ron Paul, with a wide internet presence and support, couldn't make waves in the Republican primaries. So, come November, I am not sure where these conservative Xers will cast their votes, but I suspect that many of them will stay home.
For the Democratic Party, the primaries have been a rebuke of George W. Bush. That is why Clinton has done so poorly.
Yes, I think that Hillary's lack of the support she suspected to have is because of GWB. The reason, I believe is generational.
Boomers have held the White House since 1993. Their reign has been an us vs. them culture war based on ideology with no room for middle ground. That shouldn't be surprising. They have been fighting a culture war since their campus days in the 60s. And it isn't based on things like abortion, same-sex marriage, or evolution. It is based on ideological grounds with no room for compromise. the only way things can get done in this political climate is to ramrod them through congress with slim majorities and signed by presidents half the country cannot stand. Clinton, from 1993 to 2001, was constantly at odds with conservative (neocon) Boomers like Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich. The feuding became so petty between Gingrich and Clinton that the federal government was shut down over what some insiders determined was a fit over having to enter Air Force One through the rear entrance. Clinton Crotch Watch '98 and the resulting impeachment trial were the defining moments of the Clinton presidency, and, unfortunately, will go down in history as his legacy. But even this was nothing compared to what the next president, a Baby Boomer Republican, has wrought upon the USA.
Bush sold himself in the 2000 campaign as the uniter, not divider. He promised to restore integrity to the oval office. In truth he was neither. true to his Boomer generation, he was an idealogue, a culture warrior unwilling to take into account dissent or, for that matter, reality when it countered his ideals. Instead, through his own gross incompetence he let down America's guard on 9-11, then invaded a country that had nothing to do with it with no plan. Even today, with 20/20 hindsight, his ideology will not let him concede that he really mussed this one up. Rahter, he has changed the line from removeing weapons of mass destruction to overthrowing a brutal dictator to bringing democracy to the Middle East. With a majority so slim in the Senate that Cheney had to cast the tie-breaking vote, he ramrodded massive tax cuts, played my-way-or-the-hiway politics with his opposition, and even some of his republican cohorts in congress back in 2006 talked about using the "Nuclear Option", effectively ended the process of filibuster. Things have gotten so partisan and nasty, us vs. them, that Bush has pushed the country prematurely to exhaustion with the Boomers' politics of division.
So exhausted, that we, even Democrats 100% opposed to Bush's policies, cannot even stomach the idea of Hillary, a fellow Boomer, continuing the nation down this road, even when we believe in her goals. Fellow Xers, Millenials, and Silents will agree with my analysis. Boomers, being inherently ideological and divisive, will think this is a load of hooey. And let us not forget that there are still many Boomers in power in the House, Senate, and Supreme Court, and they aren't going anywhere soon. They will try to cast Obama or McCain as divisive since this is their world view, still go on fighting the revenge strategies they hatched back in their college days. After all, they changed the world back in the 60s through activism and protests. Yet, in the prime of their political power, come 2009 one of their own won't be president of the US.
I'm not too worried - whether we have President McCain or President Obama, because neither will have this divisive world view. It will still suck to have a Republican president, because it will mean at least another 4 years before the mistakes of Bush 43 can be corrected.
With Obama, Xers and some of the Millenials can maybe for once see a gov't that doesn't disgust them, but inspires them. Just maybe...
Barring a miracle in Texas & Ohio, or a Democratic Convention that will make the one from 1968 look civilized, Clinton will not receive the Democratic nomination for president. This leaves Barack Obama as the likely nominee for the Democrats. On the Republican side, the contest was settled weeks ago when Mitt Romney, another Baby Boomer, suspended his campaign and later endorsed John McCain as Republican nominee for president.
Come November, it is most likely that the voters will be faced with a choice between Barack Obama, a member of Generation X, or John McCain, a member of the Silent Generation, and, most likely, the last of his generation with a shot at the presidency.
Gen Xers, or 13ers, as the generation is named by Neil Howe and William Strauss, were born between 1961-1982. Their childhood featured a time in history when having children was discouraged, efforts to protect children were at their weakest, and funding to support their upbringing and general welfare was its thinnest. Many in this generation were exposed early in life to the realities of the world such as divorce, sexuality, drugs, and violence.
Recently Michelle Obama, wife of the presidential candidate, was quoted as saying, "For the first time in my adult life, I can say I'm proud to be an American." This quote has led to many Right-Wing talking points these past days. But let's consider the Xer's viewpoint of a history of politics in the USA since 1961. From a political perspective, Xers are too young to remember Kennedy, which means they became aware of, first, the Johnson admin. ending with the 1968 Democratic Convention disaster. Next Nixon and Watergate. Then Ford and Carter. Next Reagan and Bush. Say what you might (depending on which side of the political fence you site), but this is the time when Xers came of age and went out into the workforce only to find out that all the well-paying jobs the Boomers enjoyed had dried up while our gov't took on massive debt. And then came Clinton and Bush, the Boomer presidents, and the culture wars.
Is it a small wonder that Xers don't trust the gov't or any institution like the Boomers, Greatest Generation, or the Silents do/did? Xers, liberal or conservative, believe that institutions in their current state cannot solve problems. Liberal Xers hate waste and seek to streamline the government efficiently (some even leaning technocrat - see Bloomberg's popularity in NYC), while conservative Xers lean to a libertarian perspective that the governtment that governs least governs best. For these Xers, Ron Paul is the epitome of their ideas on governing. Ultimately, the libertarian position is bound to lose, just as Ron Paul, with a wide internet presence and support, couldn't make waves in the Republican primaries. So, come November, I am not sure where these conservative Xers will cast their votes, but I suspect that many of them will stay home.
For the Democratic Party, the primaries have been a rebuke of George W. Bush. That is why Clinton has done so poorly.
Yes, I think that Hillary's lack of the support she suspected to have is because of GWB. The reason, I believe is generational.
Boomers have held the White House since 1993. Their reign has been an us vs. them culture war based on ideology with no room for middle ground. That shouldn't be surprising. They have been fighting a culture war since their campus days in the 60s. And it isn't based on things like abortion, same-sex marriage, or evolution. It is based on ideological grounds with no room for compromise. the only way things can get done in this political climate is to ramrod them through congress with slim majorities and signed by presidents half the country cannot stand. Clinton, from 1993 to 2001, was constantly at odds with conservative (neocon) Boomers like Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich. The feuding became so petty between Gingrich and Clinton that the federal government was shut down over what some insiders determined was a fit over having to enter Air Force One through the rear entrance. Clinton Crotch Watch '98 and the resulting impeachment trial were the defining moments of the Clinton presidency, and, unfortunately, will go down in history as his legacy. But even this was nothing compared to what the next president, a Baby Boomer Republican, has wrought upon the USA.
Bush sold himself in the 2000 campaign as the uniter, not divider. He promised to restore integrity to the oval office. In truth he was neither. true to his Boomer generation, he was an idealogue, a culture warrior unwilling to take into account dissent or, for that matter, reality when it countered his ideals. Instead, through his own gross incompetence he let down America's guard on 9-11, then invaded a country that had nothing to do with it with no plan. Even today, with 20/20 hindsight, his ideology will not let him concede that he really mussed this one up. Rahter, he has changed the line from removeing weapons of mass destruction to overthrowing a brutal dictator to bringing democracy to the Middle East. With a majority so slim in the Senate that Cheney had to cast the tie-breaking vote, he ramrodded massive tax cuts, played my-way-or-the-hiway politics with his opposition, and even some of his republican cohorts in congress back in 2006 talked about using the "Nuclear Option", effectively ended the process of filibuster. Things have gotten so partisan and nasty, us vs. them, that Bush has pushed the country prematurely to exhaustion with the Boomers' politics of division.
So exhausted, that we, even Democrats 100% opposed to Bush's policies, cannot even stomach the idea of Hillary, a fellow Boomer, continuing the nation down this road, even when we believe in her goals. Fellow Xers, Millenials, and Silents will agree with my analysis. Boomers, being inherently ideological and divisive, will think this is a load of hooey. And let us not forget that there are still many Boomers in power in the House, Senate, and Supreme Court, and they aren't going anywhere soon. They will try to cast Obama or McCain as divisive since this is their world view, still go on fighting the revenge strategies they hatched back in their college days. After all, they changed the world back in the 60s through activism and protests. Yet, in the prime of their political power, come 2009 one of their own won't be president of the US.
I'm not too worried - whether we have President McCain or President Obama, because neither will have this divisive world view. It will still suck to have a Republican president, because it will mean at least another 4 years before the mistakes of Bush 43 can be corrected.
With Obama, Xers and some of the Millenials can maybe for once see a gov't that doesn't disgust them, but inspires them. Just maybe...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
