On Beyond Super Tuesday: Alea Jacta Est
In one very important respect — that of voter perceptions — Barack Obama couldn’t lose on Super Tuesday and Hillary Clinton couldn’t win.
Despite the fact that Clinton won most of the big states yesterday and has more delegates overall, the die is cast (or in Julius Caesar’s immortal words: alea jacta est) for a headlong scramble through the remaining primaries, and Clinton is in trouble. Clinton is in trouble because Obama has momentum, while the perceptions that have accrued to the candidates — largely positive for Obama and largely negative for Clinton in my mind — are now pretty much set in stone.
Obama has climbed some tall mountains in overcoming the inherent advantages of the Clinton campaign, including its attached-at-the-hip relationship with the Democratic Party establishment. He hasn’t had to cry in public even once, let alone try to evoke sympathy because he’s a minority dude, and except for an occasional misfire has conducted himself with a take-me-as-I-am demeanor and dignity that has inspired millions of people who didn’t know him from Adam a few short months ago.
Meanwhile, Clinton helicoptered to the top of the tallest mountain and from the outset branded herself as the incumbent, but since then has had to scratch and claw to try to stay on top. Her tears on cue and gender whinging are beyond tiresome, while the coldly calculated use of her husband and other surrogates to sling mud is contemptuous. She may be a decent person at heart, but has permitted only fleeting glimpses of her “true” self because her campaign is so scripted.
If there is a tiebreaker for me, and I suspect many other voters as well, it is the candidates’ sharply divergent positions on the Iraq war: Obama is one of the few senators to oppose it from the jump, while Clinton has bobbed and weaved as public opinion has ebbed and flowed.
If the nominee, she will be accurately saddled with the flip-flopper label that helped doom John Kerry in 2004. If president, she would continue to embrace this fool’s mission.
The big question after John McCain’s big Super Tuesday win is whether hard-core Republicans will put down their pitchforks and break ranks with McCain haters like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and James Dobson. It is important to note that all three of these demagogues have financial incentives to maintain mutually worshipful relationships with their core audiences by taking away votes from the Republican Party and not turning votes out.
The acoylytes, like the demagogues, demand a purity in ideology and behavior (in everyone except themselves, of course) that was unrealistic in the past and is patently absurd today, and to refuse to vote for McCain because he fooled around on his first wife or something is helping the GOP commit electoral suicide.
McCain, who was helped yesterday by the party’s skewed delegate allocation rules, is a flawed candidate to be sure. I myself have questions about whether he is temperamentally suited to be president.
But if McCain and the Republicans have any chance of prevailing in November, then hard-core conservatives are going to have to acknowledge a couple of things, perhaps while sitting on the toilet and muttering to themselves about how things went so wrong but still can be put to rights:
* Their pet issues won’t count for much. Abortion is off the table this time around and the GOP will not keep or lose the White House based on how many illegal immigrants they want to tar and feather and then ride out of town on a rail.
* They’ve been the tail wagging the Republican dog, but guess what? The threatening, bloviating, hankie wringing and . . . did I say threatening? over what will happen if McCain is the nominee will hopefully have the salutatory effect of bringing the rest of the party together because a lot of these folks are Republicans first and conservatives second.
The crackup of the Conservative Express, the one that has been unable to derail the Straight Talk Express, is a result of the fundamental disingenuity with which hard-core conservative movers and shakers seized on George Bush’s 2000 candidacy.
They knew that Bush was no more one of them then than Mitt Romney is now, but they saw a guy who lacked a single idea of consequence behind his frat boy smirk as a golden opportunity to impose their own brand of ideological purity on government and nation.
The result has been a thing of beauty: Runaway spending and an enormous budget deficit, serial scandals and embarrassments, no flag-burning, English language-only or anti same-sex marriage Constitutional amendments, and a Forever War that is a sucking chest wound on the economy and the national psyche. Oh, and by the way, Terry Schiavo is still dead.
32 Responses to “On Beyond Super Tuesday: Alea Jacta Est”
But the problem is that no matter how many times McCain claims to have gotten the message on immigration, they believe he will stab conservatives in the back and implement amnesty for illegal aliens. And in the long run, amensty and a path to citizenship for illegal aliens along with open broders will destroy any chance of a conservative party in the United Stated.
The Repubicans are in decline and the choice is either a long, prolonged death due to changing demographics or suicide by becoming Democratic-lite. The McCain faction of the party has choosen suiicde and the conservatives have choosen the death from the chronic problem of changing demographics.
The arch conservative spokesmen would have a better case if there were good conservatives candidates in the election but Romeny and Huckabee are more flawed as candidates than McCain.
Also, I think many of them realize that McCain has no chance against Obama and will no only lose in the rout but probably cause the Democrats to gain 60 seats or more in the Senate.
A McCain-Obama matchup could result in the Republican Party being irrelevant starting in January 2009.
[...] Beyond Super Tuesday: Alea Jacta Est February 6th, 2008 JR wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptIn one very important respect — [...]
Shaun: I posted the below at Elrod's and another post. Do you also think that, even if Hillary is slightly ahead now, the omens are looking the other way:
I got off a long shift at work. Let me ask here, as I missed the results. It looks like, according to CNN, that there is a 6 delegate difference between H & O, with Hillary ahead by 100 delegates or so due mostly to Superdelegates who can change their mind.
As I see it, superdelegates can blow w the wind, and thus, we are in a virtual delegate tie, with the rest likely to jump ship if Obama can get a head of steam in states he does well in. It looks like the NE sanctum of Hillary is virtually done.
Is this about right?
Cosmo:
It is about right for right now. But there are so many balls in the air that it might not be right this time next week.
According to Politico.com, the Obama camp is now projecting that they have the delegate lead…
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358….
“And in the long run, amensty and a path to citizenship for illegal aliens along with open broders will destroy any chance of a conservative party in the United Stated. “
History says you're wrong. Reagan regenerated the conservtive party in the United States yet still gave amnesty to illegals and did nothing to secure the borders.
Davebo,
Ronald Reagan was the governor of California when it had a majority Republican legislature and won the state in both of his presidential election. Now the Democrats can win California by more than one million votes without spending any campaign funds.
The Amnesty of 1986 handed California to the Democrats forever.
I was just at the Human Events website. The deepseated, dare I say, pathological hatred of McCain is truly amazing. Even though I beleive him to be a warmonger and a lousy choice for prez, I can't find this kind of hatred for the guy within myself.
Worst thing about Human Events is the posters clinging to their shredded, backward, head-in-the-sand conservative values that have produced nothing but woe for this country, time and again, and again, and again.
Gah teh stupid!! It burns! It burns!!
Ronald Reagan could not be elected in today's Republican Party. The irony is, Reagan is in my mind, the one most responsible for what it has become.
Clinton didn't get the most delegates though, Shaun.
The fact is, Hillary Clinton has regained her influence and her own momentum and makes her the still-the-smart-money candidate and Obama the underdog, though many of us want Obama to win above and beyond the obvious American desire for Hillary Clinton to lose.
“The Amnesty of 1986 handed California to the Democrats forever.”
Post-1986 amnesty is where McCain in particular fails among non-liberal Americans.
I was discussing the election results as we know them to date earlier today and the subject of McCain came up. I asked for views on the guy and what I heard was overall quite positive, including a key descriptor, “concensus builder” (this was from someone who wanted to massacre the key members of both parties after the 2000 election for contesting it: “It's MY sand box! No, it's MY sand box!”) but the talk got highly negative when it came to “that amnesty shit of his.” All but the most questionable Americans hate amnesty for illegal immigrants.
“I was just at the Human Events website. The deepseated, dare I say, pathological hatred of McCain is truly amazing.”
I'll spare comment on your other, incorrect statements about conservatism (I'm on the moderate side and don't find most conservatism harmful, let alone loathsome, whereas liberalism has a record of failure and was responsible for the 1980 election results). I do enjoy the reader battles on Town Hall that respond to Hugh Hewitt, who has been a tireless Romney cheerleader and one of the leaders of the charge against McCain. (The reader remarks in fact are not in any true way disturbing; they are entertaining.)
Poor Hugh-ie had to face some ugly facts last night, McCain vs. Romney.
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/b7d8fd20-…
“I was just at the Human Events website. The deepseated, dare I say, pathological hatred of McCain is truly amazing.”
I'll spare comment on your other, incorrect statements about conservatism (I'm on the moderate side and don't find most conservatism harmful, let alone loathsome, whereas liberalism has a record of failure and was responsible for the 1980 election results). I do enjoy the reader battles on Town Hall that respond to Hugh Hewitt, who has been a tireless Romney cheerleader and one of the leaders of the charge against McCain. (The reader remarks in fact are not in any true way disturbing; they are entertaining.)
Poor Hugh-ie had to face some ugly facts last night, McCain vs. Romney.
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/b7d8fd20-…
“Clinton helicoptered to the top of the tallest mountain”
My offer of the chest strap to give her an unsurpassed outdoor aerial view of things still stands.
(Once at altitude — oops! “Inadvertent” cargo hook release!)
“Clinton helicoptered to the top of the tallest mountain”
My offer of the chest strap to give her an unsurpassed outdoor aerial view of things still stands.
(Once at altitude — oops! “Inadvertent” cargo hook release!)
DLS-
Having read some of your comments I get the impression you think of conservatism in a more pure, old fashioned form whereas I only think of modern conservatism as demonstrated by corporate welfare, anti-science thinking, increased government intrusion, anti-environmental policy, and consolidated federal power.
The old kind of conservatism may have some value, like brushing your teeth with baking soda, but it certainly isn't evident in the practice of any current self-proclaimed conservative policy makers.
So we end up with McCain, who has voted 85% percent along those conservative lines for his entire career suddenly not being conservative enough.
What's a guy gotta do around here to get some conservative credentials?
DLS-
Having read some of your comments I get the impression you think of conservatism in a more pure, old fashioned form whereas I only think of modern conservatism as demonstrated by corporate welfare, anti-science thinking, increased government intrusion, anti-environmental policy, and consolidated federal power.
The old kind of conservatism may have some value, like brushing your teeth with baking soda, but it certainly isn't evident in the practice of any current self-proclaimed conservative policy makers.
So we end up with McCain, who has voted 85% percent along those conservative lines for his entire career suddenly not being conservative enough.
What's a guy gotta do around here to get some conservative credentials?
He's got to be in total lockstep with the far right. Any deviation will have you branded as a traitor and you will be turned upon by your own side as a result. It is classical authoritarian behavior.
He's got to be in total lockstep with the far right. Any deviation will have you branded as a traitor and you will be turned upon by your own side as a result. It is classical authoritarian behavior.
“I only think of modern conservatism as demonstrated by corporate welfare, anti-science thinking, increased government intrusion, anti-environmental policy, and consolidated federal power”
Some of that is just applied modern liberalism, and the rest is a distorted version of it.
“like brushing your teeth with baking soda”
Mischaracterization. Greatly reducing the size and scope of Washington is in no way negative or crude. Anything truly sought or desired can still be undertaken by state and local government, where almost everything properly belongs.
On the other hand, our modern liberalism and government interventionism has a great analogy to describe it. You (our society, or our economy) has an ailment. The doctor prescribes medication (a government program or regulation or other form of interventionism). Never mind that what often happens is that the problem is made worse. We get side effects from the medication (unintended consequences, though in practice they're often predicted). What does the doctor do? Why, prescribe more medication, this time for the side effects of the earlier, original medication. What happens? Additional side effects. More medicine is prescribed. And so it goes. That's what we have with Washington as well as in some states (such as in New York).
Stopping the medicines that are harming us is hardly choosing to be crude.
“What's a guy gotta do around here to get some conservative credentials?”
Be consistently conservative, not opportunistically conservative (or opportunistically liberal at times to draw attention to one's self).
Example? End a federal entitlement program. Don't just reduce future cost growth; end the program. If it's wanted badly enough in some places, those places 9states and localities) can undertake it.
“I only think of modern conservatism as demonstrated by corporate welfare, anti-science thinking, increased government intrusion, anti-environmental policy, and consolidated federal power”
Some of that is just applied modern liberalism, and the rest is a distorted version of it.
“like brushing your teeth with baking soda”
Mischaracterization. Greatly reducing the size and scope of Washington is in no way negative or crude. Anything truly sought or desired can still be undertaken by state and local government, where almost everything properly belongs.
On the other hand, our modern liberalism and government interventionism has a great analogy to describe it. You (our society, or our economy) has an ailment. The doctor prescribes medication (a government program or regulation or other form of interventionism). Never mind that what often happens is that the problem is made worse. We get side effects from the medication (unintended consequences, though in practice they're often predicted). What does the doctor do? Why, prescribe more medication, this time for the side effects of the earlier, original medication. What happens? Additional side effects. More medicine is prescribed. And so it goes. That's what we have with Washington as well as in some states (such as in New York).
Stopping the medicines that are harming us is hardly choosing to be crude.
“What's a guy gotta do around here to get some conservative credentials?”
Be consistently conservative, not opportunistically conservative (or opportunistically liberal at times to draw attention to one's self).
Example? End a federal entitlement program. Don't just reduce future cost growth; end the program. If it's wanted badly enough in some places, those places 9states and localities) can undertake it.
“total lockstep with the far right”
You were corrected already, elsewhere, about misuse of the term “far right.” The Birchers and KKK and Spanish Inquisition and Nazi Party don't run Washington, no matter what some may believe and claim.
“classical authoritarian behavior”
Straw man. Also ironic, given the Left has been the main totalitarianism-flirting element of our society here in the USA since the Progressive Era.
“total lockstep with the far right”
You were corrected already, elsewhere, about misuse of the term “far right.” The Birchers and KKK and Spanish Inquisition and Nazi Party don't run Washington, no matter what some may believe and claim.
“classical authoritarian behavior”
Straw man. Also ironic, given the Left has been the main totalitarianism-flirting element of our society here in the USA since the Progressive Era.
HappySurge:
Clinton leads OVERALL in delegates, 845-765 according to the most recent numbers.
HappySurge:
Clinton leads OVERALL in delegates, 845-765 according to the most recent numbers.
'Ronald Reagan could not be elected in today's Republican Party. The irony is, Reagan is in my mind, the one most responsible for what it has become.'
True, and aptly deserved.
'Ronald Reagan could not be elected in today's Republican Party. The irony is, Reagan is in my mind, the one most responsible for what it has become.'
True, and aptly deserved.
A couple comments. First, the abuse that conservatives are taking for their dislike of McCain reminds me very much of the abuse that many liberals took in their dislike of Lieberman. In the latter case, liberals were supposed to be looking for ideological purity and people against Lieberman were accused of being crazy left-wing nutjobs, dancing to the puppet strings of KOS and MoveOn.org. Same rhetoric being applied in the opposite direction here. In the McCain case, it seems that immigration has become the sole voting issue for many conservatives, like abortion was in the 80s. For the Lieberman case, in 2006, Iraq was the sole voting issue for many liberals. One difference of course is that McCain has never switched parties and he votes with Republicans the majority of times. I am not sure if the latter is still true of Lieberman or not. Regardless, as SD has indicated, immigration is THE issue for many.
Next up, superdestroyer, you and I go around on this every month or two, but one's ethnicity does not truly determine how people vote. Hispanics consider candidates the same way that everyone else does. Republicans can win them over if they are welcoming to Hispanics and fight for this issue Hispanic voters care about. Of course, Hispanics are many millions of people from many countries and many different economic and social backgrounds, so they have many various issues they care about. If the only message the Republican party can consistently give out is that we don't want you here, then they are indeed in trouble.
Finally, I understand what you are saying, DLS, about the KKK and Birchers. Yet by the same logic there are no real liberals in Washington either since the Communists are not in charge of the Democratic party.
A couple comments. First, the abuse that conservatives are taking for their dislike of McCain reminds me very much of the abuse that many liberals took in their dislike of Lieberman. In the latter case, liberals were supposed to be looking for ideological purity and people against Lieberman were accused of being crazy left-wing nutjobs, dancing to the puppet strings of KOS and MoveOn.org. Same rhetoric being applied in the opposite direction here. In the McCain case, it seems that immigration has become the sole voting issue for many conservatives, like abortion was in the 80s. For the Lieberman case, in 2006, Iraq was the sole voting issue for many liberals. One difference of course is that McCain has never switched parties and he votes with Republicans the majority of times. I am not sure if the latter is still true of Lieberman or not. Regardless, as SD has indicated, immigration is THE issue for many.
Next up, superdestroyer, you and I go around on this every month or two, but one's ethnicity does not truly determine how people vote. Hispanics consider candidates the same way that everyone else does. Republicans can win them over if they are welcoming to Hispanics and fight for this issue Hispanic voters care about. Of course, Hispanics are many millions of people from many countries and many different economic and social backgrounds, so they have many various issues they care about. If the only message the Republican party can consistently give out is that we don't want you here, then they are indeed in trouble.
Finally, I understand what you are saying, DLS, about the KKK and Birchers. Yet by the same logic there are no real liberals in Washington either since the Communists are not in charge of the Democratic party.
“Finally, I understand what you are saying, DLS, about the KKK and Birchers.”
I'd have added the militias, but they came and went — and weren't quite up to the Birchers' or even the KKK's standards, anyway. [grin]
“Yet by the same logic there are no real liberals in Washington either since the Communists are not in charge of the Democratic party.”
In charge? No dispute whatsoever. The Dem Party leadership goes to lengths to give swing voters the impression the party is staid, trustworthy, and has learned from liberalism's past mistakes and failures. That was what lay behind their use in a contemporary sense of the term “Third Way.” (Smart people never bought it, but some did.) I believe Al From told Jesse Jackson that activists like Jackson (the party's left wing, well left of center to truly far left) had no place in party decision making.
Third Way — New Democrats — what's not decided in the Executive or Congress or by activists in the judiciary is devised by the likes of Brookings or PPI — [writhing]
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=132
http://www.ndol.org/
The party overall is much more diverse and interesting than the GOP in that respect; it has many who are well left of center and normal by US standards (though many would wish for another party like the Greens if one were viable), and some truly radical (think of McKinney, Lee, and don't forget Dellums if our adventure in Grenada gets any revisitation any time soon). Wellstone was radical; Kucinich is radical. The special interest groups of the Dems are numerous (unions, lawyers, etc.) and at times have sought or supported radical, not just liberal, objectives. It's an uneven playing field (which you can see in how the GOP and conservativism is so badly mischaracterized and misplaced on the spectrum by the media, who overall are well left of center and of neutrality).
The solution to the Dems especially but also to the GOP is to fracture these parties and to then go to proportional representation everywhere it can be done (practically speaking, with groups of five or more seats to be contested). Many small states don't have enough Congressional seats by themselves but perhaps a regional system (which is more “representative,” to use an overused word about Iowa and New Hampshire, of different parts of the nation and their different ways of life; this nation is NOT homogeneous) would be ideal for this purpose (for the House of Representatives).
“Finally, I understand what you are saying, DLS, about the KKK and Birchers.”
I'd have added the militias, but they came and went — and weren't quite up to the Birchers' or even the KKK's standards, anyway. [grin]
“Yet by the same logic there are no real liberals in Washington either since the Communists are not in charge of the Democratic party.”
In charge? No dispute whatsoever. The Dem Party leadership goes to lengths to give swing voters the impression the party is staid, trustworthy, and has learned from liberalism's past mistakes and failures. That was what lay behind their use in a contemporary sense of the term “Third Way.” (Smart people never bought it, but some did.) I believe Al From told Jesse Jackson that activists like Jackson (the party's left wing, well left of center to truly far left) had no place in party decision making.
Third Way — New Democrats — what's not decided in the Executive or Congress or by activists in the judiciary is devised by the likes of Brookings or PPI — [writhing]
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=132
http://www.ndol.org/
The party overall is much more diverse and interesting than the GOP in that respect; it has many who are well left of center and normal by US standards (though many would wish for another party like the Greens if one were viable), and some truly radical (think of McKinney, Lee, and don't forget Dellums if our adventure in Grenada gets any revisitation any time soon). Wellstone was radical; Kucinich is radical. The special interest groups of the Dems are numerous (unions, lawyers, etc.) and at times have sought or supported radical, not just liberal, objectives. It's an uneven playing field (which you can see in how the GOP and conservativism is so badly mischaracterized and misplaced on the spectrum by the media, who overall are well left of center and of neutrality).
The solution to the Dems especially but also to the GOP is to fracture these parties and to then go to proportional representation everywhere it can be done (practically speaking, with groups of five or more seats to be contested). Many small states don't have enough Congressional seats by themselves but perhaps a regional system (which is more “representative,” to use an overused word about Iowa and New Hampshire, of different parts of the nation and their different ways of life; this nation is NOT homogeneous) would be ideal for this purpose (for the House of Representatives).