No, he's not dead, but today John Edwards dropped out of the Democratic Presidential Primary.
Not that this came as a galloping shock to anyone. I don't think anyone following the primary campaigns expected Edwards to win the nomination, but this news certainly has the possibility of having a major impact on the Democratic race. To begin with, Edwards was probably the best candidate the Democrats had. He's a southern man (remember that the Democrats haven't had a President who wasn't from the south since Kennedy almost 50 years ago), and he was also probably the most liberal Democrat in the race, even though that wasn't necessarily the perception. In a lot of ways, Edwards is perceived as more moderate than he is, probably because he's from the South. But, Edwards campaign was all about poverty, the plight of the lower middle class and the poor; the lack of health insurance that plagues miliions of Americans; and the idea that increasing trade and globalization of corporations has taken away American jobs. Edwards saw himself as a champion of the little guy and that was the central theme of his campaign.
Edwards hasn't endorsed anyone yet, but CNN is reporting that it's more likely for him to endorse Obama than Clinton as they see Obama's campaign being more about the issues that Edwards cared about and Clinton as more of a product of the establishment. I believe things are almost certainly more complicated than that. Four years ago John Kerry chose John Edwards as his running mate in the 2004 Presidential election. The hope was that Edwards would bring in southern voters and help Kerry to win a few states in the south, something no Democrat but Bill Clinton has done in a long time. This strategy didn't work; Bush won every Southern state, but I believe that the principle behind it still works.
Whether Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, they'll need to pick a running mate. I think it unlikely that we'll see Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton as the ticket. The divisiveness of the campaign and who these two candidates are makes me doubt very seriously that either will choose the other as his or her running mate. Ideally, a Vice-Presidential nominee helps a candidate bring in a few votes he wouldn't otherwise get, but doesn't overshadow the top of the ticket. I believe that Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton are so close in national polls and notoriety, that each would be seen as taking attention away from the other if they were put on the same ticket. Furthermore, there has already been tension between these two in the early primaries and they are so close in the polls that this could drag out a long time with even more bickering, sniping and tension between the two candidates. For these reasons, it seems unlikely to me that we'll see these two on the same ticket. Instead, I think we'll once again see John Edwards on the bottom of the Democratic ticket.
What I find most interesting about John Edwards decision to drop out today is the timing. A week after the South Carolina primary (which he'd probably expected to make a better showing in) and a week BEFORE Super Tuesday when nearly two dozen states will vote. It could simply be a matter of his campaign running out of money, but I think there may be more at play here. Edwards knows he's not winning the nomination and he wants to get the VP nod again. I think his decision to drop out now could very well be a play to get that nomination. Either, one of the candidates has offered it to him (in exchange for his endorsement), or he wants to give them time to make that offer and he can throw his support behind that candidate before Super Tuesday. The latter scenario seems more likely to me since he hasn't endorsed anyone yet.
While it's entirely possible that I'm seeing more in this situation than is really there, it makes sense that there would be something behind it. No matter who he gives his support to, Edwards has the potential ability to swing this election. He's been consistently polling in the 20% range and he's been talking about issues that the other candidates aren't really touching on. Edwards' supporters seem to represent a significant block of Democratic voters who could have a definate impact on whether Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama wins this primary.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Our Primary System
Every four years in this country, we get to elect a new President. This is one of the many good things about our system of government. We don't have to suffer under bad or corrupt leadership for indefinate periods of time. If you don't like the current President, take heart because you'll always be able to elect a new one in a few years. Throughout our history, we've had some great leaders. Washington and Lincoln spring to mind immediately. But, we've also had some really lousy ones; George W. Bush, Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan, to name a few. Of course who your favorite President is, or whether you like the current one is always up for debate and it's almost always, at least partially, a matter of opinion.
Who was the last great President? Some would argue Kennedy, others FDR, others woudl say Reagan, and you might even get a few people to say they think it was Bill Clinton. However, I don't believe any of these would be universally accepted as our last great President. In fact, I think the last man that you could get the largest number of people to agree on would be our friend Honest Abe Lincoln. Somehow, our country has gotten by for almost 150 years without a President that is nearly universally haled as a great Leader. Of course, every President has his detractors and some were more universally liked than others, but the bottom line is that our system rarely seems to produce true greatness in our leaders.
I think that the main cause of this is our system of primary elections. We have a two-party system in this country and each party gets to nominate a candidate for the highest office in the land. Unfortunately, the nominating process seems to ensure that we end up with the most marginal candidate from each party. Not necessarily the best, in many cases, not even the most electable, just the one that managed to emerge from the fray in his party's primary.
I see a couple of major issues with the primary process. The first is that it causes division and dissension within the ranks of each party. Since most members of the same party have similar stances on the most important issues, each candidate has to try to find a way to distinguish himself from his opponent(s). This leads to the politics of personal attack. The candidates look for ways to discredit their opponents, to make them look bad, and they attempt to highlight minor differences between themselves and their opponents. What we end up with is dirty politics and dirty campaign tactics.
The second big issue I see with the primary system is the role of the media. Primary campaigns move from state to state and proceed rather slowly. The early primaries are held one state at a time, and often in places that are not likely to be indicative of the way the majority of the populace would vote if given the chance. In this age of the 24 hour news cycle, the media always has to have something to talk about, so they spend their time highlighting minor differences between candidates, and talking about personalities and human interest stories much more than issues. Furthermore, the media has a tendency to decide how they think someone should be portrayed, then make their perception into reality.
There are numerous examples of this. In 2004 Howard Dean was a frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, he gave a speech after narrowly losing the Iowa caucuses, in which he showed enthusiasm and emotion in trying to fire up his supporters. The media decided that he didn't look "Presidential" in this speech and they proceeded to bury him. In current primaries, this effect is just as clear. The media decided early on that the Democratic primary was going to be a race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, they had a perfect story, a black man and a woman (two groups that had never been represented in the White House) were both viable candidates for the Democratic nomination. That's how the story was presented, and John Edwards simply became "that other guy who refuses to give up." Edwards consistently gets around 20% in the polls and he may be the most electable (good looking southern democrat who speaks with an accent) and probably also the most "democratic" (e.g. most liberal) of the three candidates, yet he barely gets mentioned in the media because it would distract from their perfect Hillary vs. Obama story.
What we end up with is essentially a system where the media picks our candidates for us. Which ties us into our final problem with the current construction of the primary system. The general public tends to have something of a herd mentality. Most people don't want to go through the effort of thinking about the issues or the candidates for themselves (and of course, it's hard for primaries to be about issues anyway since the candidates opinions are likely to be very much alike), instead they just follow the pack. So, we have these early primaries in out of the way places like Iowa and New Hampshire and the media anoints their winners as the "frontrunners." Then, since everyone wants to vote for a winner, voters in the later primaries tend to vote for these frontrunners and all of a sudden we find ourselves with the most marginal candidate on each side.
I know this commentary probably sounds pretty pessimistic. In most cases like this, I don't have all the answers, nor is the purpose of this blog to offer answers, rather it's to get people thinking, but in this case I will offer a couple of possibilities and you, the reader, can decide what you think or even discuss it in the comments section. I see 3 possible reforms to the primary system; 1) Hold every primary across the country on the same day, just like we do with the general election, 2) Scrap the whole primary system and hold two elections about a month apart. In the first election anyone from any party can run and if anyone gets more than 50% of the vote he (or she) wins outright. If no one gets to 50%, a run-off election is held between the top 2 candidates, even if they're both from the same party. 3) We eliminate the primary system altogether. Each state elects delegates to the national conventions, and those delegates hold meetings and discussions at the convention, then select a nominee.
None of these is perfect, but I think they would probably all produce better candidates and less overall rancor than the current system. What do you think?
Who was the last great President? Some would argue Kennedy, others FDR, others woudl say Reagan, and you might even get a few people to say they think it was Bill Clinton. However, I don't believe any of these would be universally accepted as our last great President. In fact, I think the last man that you could get the largest number of people to agree on would be our friend Honest Abe Lincoln. Somehow, our country has gotten by for almost 150 years without a President that is nearly universally haled as a great Leader. Of course, every President has his detractors and some were more universally liked than others, but the bottom line is that our system rarely seems to produce true greatness in our leaders.
I think that the main cause of this is our system of primary elections. We have a two-party system in this country and each party gets to nominate a candidate for the highest office in the land. Unfortunately, the nominating process seems to ensure that we end up with the most marginal candidate from each party. Not necessarily the best, in many cases, not even the most electable, just the one that managed to emerge from the fray in his party's primary.
I see a couple of major issues with the primary process. The first is that it causes division and dissension within the ranks of each party. Since most members of the same party have similar stances on the most important issues, each candidate has to try to find a way to distinguish himself from his opponent(s). This leads to the politics of personal attack. The candidates look for ways to discredit their opponents, to make them look bad, and they attempt to highlight minor differences between themselves and their opponents. What we end up with is dirty politics and dirty campaign tactics.
The second big issue I see with the primary system is the role of the media. Primary campaigns move from state to state and proceed rather slowly. The early primaries are held one state at a time, and often in places that are not likely to be indicative of the way the majority of the populace would vote if given the chance. In this age of the 24 hour news cycle, the media always has to have something to talk about, so they spend their time highlighting minor differences between candidates, and talking about personalities and human interest stories much more than issues. Furthermore, the media has a tendency to decide how they think someone should be portrayed, then make their perception into reality.
There are numerous examples of this. In 2004 Howard Dean was a frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, he gave a speech after narrowly losing the Iowa caucuses, in which he showed enthusiasm and emotion in trying to fire up his supporters. The media decided that he didn't look "Presidential" in this speech and they proceeded to bury him. In current primaries, this effect is just as clear. The media decided early on that the Democratic primary was going to be a race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, they had a perfect story, a black man and a woman (two groups that had never been represented in the White House) were both viable candidates for the Democratic nomination. That's how the story was presented, and John Edwards simply became "that other guy who refuses to give up." Edwards consistently gets around 20% in the polls and he may be the most electable (good looking southern democrat who speaks with an accent) and probably also the most "democratic" (e.g. most liberal) of the three candidates, yet he barely gets mentioned in the media because it would distract from their perfect Hillary vs. Obama story.
What we end up with is essentially a system where the media picks our candidates for us. Which ties us into our final problem with the current construction of the primary system. The general public tends to have something of a herd mentality. Most people don't want to go through the effort of thinking about the issues or the candidates for themselves (and of course, it's hard for primaries to be about issues anyway since the candidates opinions are likely to be very much alike), instead they just follow the pack. So, we have these early primaries in out of the way places like Iowa and New Hampshire and the media anoints their winners as the "frontrunners." Then, since everyone wants to vote for a winner, voters in the later primaries tend to vote for these frontrunners and all of a sudden we find ourselves with the most marginal candidate on each side.
I know this commentary probably sounds pretty pessimistic. In most cases like this, I don't have all the answers, nor is the purpose of this blog to offer answers, rather it's to get people thinking, but in this case I will offer a couple of possibilities and you, the reader, can decide what you think or even discuss it in the comments section. I see 3 possible reforms to the primary system; 1) Hold every primary across the country on the same day, just like we do with the general election, 2) Scrap the whole primary system and hold two elections about a month apart. In the first election anyone from any party can run and if anyone gets more than 50% of the vote he (or she) wins outright. If no one gets to 50%, a run-off election is held between the top 2 candidates, even if they're both from the same party. 3) We eliminate the primary system altogether. Each state elects delegates to the national conventions, and those delegates hold meetings and discussions at the convention, then select a nominee.
None of these is perfect, but I think they would probably all produce better candidates and less overall rancor than the current system. What do you think?
One Tenth of Honest Abe
We live in a time not unlike the period leading up to the Presidency of my tenth cousin Abraham Lincoln. Our nation is split along partisan and socioeconomic lines. The level of vitriol and venom from both sides of the aisle is disturbing. In the time of Lincoln, we were headed toward a bloody civil war over the questions of slavery and states' rights. Today, while we are unlikely to see another civil war, the level of contentiousness in the national debate rivals that of the mid 19th century. The splits are very different though.
In the time of Lincoln, things were somewhat more clear cut. The split was between North and South, slave states and free states; the debate was over whether new states would allow slavery and how strong the Federal Government would be. Today, we see a much more blurred line, yet the intensity of the debate on both sides is similar. The battle today is not between North and South, or even between "red states" and "blue states." In fact, "red states" and "blue states" are really a myth. The true split is between urban and rural (and to a lesser extent suburban) populations. If you look at a map, you'll notice that in the blue states there are still large red areas and in the red states there are pockets of blue, usually centered around large cities. In other words, red state or blue state is really defined most by whether the number of people in urban areas outnumber those in rural areas, or vice versa.
We have a two party system where the true difference between parties is very small, yet the level of rhetoric would suggest that there is a huge chasm between what the two sides stand for. That rhetoric is slowly tearing this nation apart. Politics has turned personal; no longer is the debate about what someone stands for, or how well (or poorly) they might govern. Instead, it's about what mistakes they've made in the past or present, what dirt can we dredge and up how we can paint the picture or frame the debate to make our opponent look bad. I believe the reason for this is quite simple; it serves as a distraction. It keeps people fired up and it keeps the party base energized, in a time when neither party is doing a particularly good job of governance, nor is it all that easy to distinguish between the practices of the two. It's true, the party platforms have major idealogical differences in them, but if we look closely at the reality of government, we'll see that nothing much ever changes.
It is in this climate that I begin my foray into political analysis and commentary. I'm 25 years old and soon I will be starting a career in the United States Air Force. I graduated college almost 4 years ago with a degree in political science, and I've always been fascinated by the political process. God blessed me with a keen intellect and a very open mind. Unfortunately, as a result, I've had a hard time over the years coming to concrete conclusions of my own on major issues or choosing to fully support one political party over another. However, it has given me to ability to see the logic and reason in all sides of almost any issue. I believe that this gift has allowed me to see the world a little more clearly. My opinions are not usually colored by unshakeable views, religious or otherwise. Instead, I'm able to open my mind, see all sides of an issue and attempt to draw a conclusion.
Abraham Lincoln is my tenth cousin and while I don't pretend to be as insightful or gifted as he was, I hope that by attaching his name to this blog, I can someday live up to at least a tenth of his legacy. I will try in this blog to offer my opinions and conclusions on political issues of the day and the political process. But, mostly I hope to provide sound analysis of happenings in the political arena and leave an opening for my readers to draw their own conclusions.
In the time of Lincoln, things were somewhat more clear cut. The split was between North and South, slave states and free states; the debate was over whether new states would allow slavery and how strong the Federal Government would be. Today, we see a much more blurred line, yet the intensity of the debate on both sides is similar. The battle today is not between North and South, or even between "red states" and "blue states." In fact, "red states" and "blue states" are really a myth. The true split is between urban and rural (and to a lesser extent suburban) populations. If you look at a map, you'll notice that in the blue states there are still large red areas and in the red states there are pockets of blue, usually centered around large cities. In other words, red state or blue state is really defined most by whether the number of people in urban areas outnumber those in rural areas, or vice versa.
We have a two party system where the true difference between parties is very small, yet the level of rhetoric would suggest that there is a huge chasm between what the two sides stand for. That rhetoric is slowly tearing this nation apart. Politics has turned personal; no longer is the debate about what someone stands for, or how well (or poorly) they might govern. Instead, it's about what mistakes they've made in the past or present, what dirt can we dredge and up how we can paint the picture or frame the debate to make our opponent look bad. I believe the reason for this is quite simple; it serves as a distraction. It keeps people fired up and it keeps the party base energized, in a time when neither party is doing a particularly good job of governance, nor is it all that easy to distinguish between the practices of the two. It's true, the party platforms have major idealogical differences in them, but if we look closely at the reality of government, we'll see that nothing much ever changes.
It is in this climate that I begin my foray into political analysis and commentary. I'm 25 years old and soon I will be starting a career in the United States Air Force. I graduated college almost 4 years ago with a degree in political science, and I've always been fascinated by the political process. God blessed me with a keen intellect and a very open mind. Unfortunately, as a result, I've had a hard time over the years coming to concrete conclusions of my own on major issues or choosing to fully support one political party over another. However, it has given me to ability to see the logic and reason in all sides of almost any issue. I believe that this gift has allowed me to see the world a little more clearly. My opinions are not usually colored by unshakeable views, religious or otherwise. Instead, I'm able to open my mind, see all sides of an issue and attempt to draw a conclusion.
Abraham Lincoln is my tenth cousin and while I don't pretend to be as insightful or gifted as he was, I hope that by attaching his name to this blog, I can someday live up to at least a tenth of his legacy. I will try in this blog to offer my opinions and conclusions on political issues of the day and the political process. But, mostly I hope to provide sound analysis of happenings in the political arena and leave an opening for my readers to draw their own conclusions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)