Barack Obama and America’s Pretzel Politics
YORK, Pa. — It’s fitting that Pennsylvania is land of the pretzel — where “Pennsylvania Dutch” Swiss and German immigrants introduced the food to America in the 19th century. Citizens of nearby Philadelphia reportedly consume 12 times the national average of the twisted, baked delight.
A gas station here has pretzel sandwiches and inexpensive bags of broken pretzels. Both are metaphors for what is happening politically to Democrats here, to President Barack Obama in Washington, and to the Democratic Party around the country. The political fates in 21st century America have more twists and turns than a pretzel.
The big news in this state once headed by Democratic powerhouse Gov. Ed Rendell is about a GOP power grab: a proposal by GOPers including the present Republican Governor Tom Corbett seeks to dump Pennsylvania’s winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes and elect Presidents by congressional districts. Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Karen Heller notes that the only other states that do that are Nebraska and Maine. Democrats won Pennsylvania in the last five elections and Obama won the state by 10 percentage points.
“Our state has 1.1 million more Democrats than Republicans, yet the congressional delegation consists of 12 R’s and seven D’s.” Heller writes. “How did this happen? Magic! Instead of gerrymandering, we have GOPermandering.”
Although partisans will screech “false equivalency!” — that obnoxious phrase used by members of each party to look the other way on their own party’s past history — gerrymandering and voter suppression in various forms has not been exclusively practiced by one party. But Republicans have been exploiting their 2010 wins of governorships and legislatures at break-neck pace, seeking to shove through voting rules and requirement changes in several states. In Nebraska, GOPers may change electoral vote allocation TO winner-take-all to make it tougher for Obama. All this reflects a Democratic Party weakened after having virtually squandered its historical 2008 win.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama often resembles a pretzel sandwich. Each week left and right media narratives provide new twists with Obama in the middle. Obama’s polls are declining. Wait! Now he’s making a big speech! Will he rebound? Will he be “another Carter?” Obama will create a new category for future Presidents: “an Obama.” Former President George H. W. Bush reportedly felt campaigning was a chore but loved to govern. Obama seemingly thrives in campaign mode but sags in governance.
The Obama administration often seems like a bunch of college students cramming at the very last minute for a final exam.
GO HERE to read the rest.
Share This
It’s funny that you would mention pretzels at a time when the Fed is pondering “operation twist”.
According to a variety of polls, the president’s approval has improved since the speech, but by way too little. He had an opportunity to make some good administrative changes when he first took office, which is what a lot of people were looking for, but he blew it. There’s not much he can do to change that now.
“But Republicans have been exploiting their 2010 wins of governorships and legislatures at break-neck pace”
Sort of like shoving through one of the factually largest (and subsequently most ill-received) appropriations in Congressional history on January 28,2009.
As for Obama’s poll numbers, you do realize his re-election chances would be maximized if he gave speeches but actually did nothing.
“The Obama administration often seems like a bunch of college students cramming at the very last minute for a final exam.”
Good analogy Joe. (or is is a simile? I can’t remember) An apt description in any case.
And to add to the mix, up in Maine, the only other state beside Nebraska to use the district method, Mike Tipping reports on Republicans, also newly in the majority like their counterparts in Pennsylvania. Earlier this year, Republican leaders in Maine proposed and passed a constitutional amendment that, if passed at referendum, will require a 2/3rds vote in all future redistricting decisions. Now they want to pass a majority-only plan.
Dividing Pennsylvania’s electoral votes by district would magnify the worst features of the system and not reflect the diversity of Pennsylvania.
The district approach would provide less incentive for presidential candidates to campaign in all Pennsylvania districts and would not focus the candidates’ attention to issues of concern to the whole state. Candidates would have no reason to campaign in districts where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind.
Due to gerrymandering, in 2008, only 4 Pennsylvania districts were competitive.
When votes matter, presidential candidates vigorously solicit those voters. When votes don’t matter, they ignore those areas.
In Maine, where they award electoral votes by congressional district, the closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine’s 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored)
In Nebraska, which also uses the district method, the 2008 presidential campaigns did not pay the slightest attention to the people of Nebraska’s reliably Republican 1st and 3rd congressional districts because it was a foregone conclusion that McCain would win the most popular votes in both of those districts. The issues relevant to voters of the 2nd district (the Omaha area) mattered, while the (very different) issues relevant to the remaining (mostly rural) 2/3rds of the state were irrelevant.
When votes matter, presidential candidates vigorously solicit those voters. When votes don’t matter, they ignore those areas.
Nationwide, there are only 55 “battleground” districts that are competitive in presidential elections. 88% of the nation’s congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.
If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country’s congressional districts.
Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.
Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.
Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person’s vote equal and guarantee that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states becomes President.
A survey of 800 Pennsylvania voters conducted on December 16-17, 2008 showed 78% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
Support was 87% among Democrats, 68% among Republicans, and 76% among independents.
By age, support was 77% among 18-29 year olds, 73% among 30-45 year olds, 81% among 46-65 year olds, and 78% for those older than 65.By gender, support was 85% among women and 71% among men.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states wins the presidency.
National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state and district (in ME and NE). Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate.
With National Popular Vote, elections wouldn’t be about winning states or districts (in ME and NE). No more distorting and divisive red and blue state and district maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed iin recent polls in closely divided battleground states: CO– 68%, IA –75%, MI– 73%, MO– 70%, NH– 69%, NV– 72%, NM– 76%, NC– 74%, OH– 70%, PA — 78%, VA — 74%, and WI — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE –75%, ME — 77%, NE — 74%, NH –69%, NV — 72%, NM — 76%, RI — 74%, and VT — 75%; in Southern and border states: AR –80%, KY — 80%, MS –77%, MO — 70%, NC — 74%, and VA — 74%; and in other states polled: CA — 70%, CT — 74% , MA — 73%, MN – 75%, NY — 79%, WA — 77%, and WV- 81%.
On Election Night, most voters don’t care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state… they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans consider the idea of the candidate with the most popular votes being declared a loser detestable. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC (3), HI (4), IL (19), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), CA (55), VT (3), and WA (13). These 9 jurisdictions possess 132 electoral votes — 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
NationalPopularVote