Some Thoughts on the Nevada Caucus

Posted on by
2

…based on 60% of the precincts reporting.  The Nevada map provided at the link indicates that Sanders won the urban counties, Buttigieg won the rural counties, and Biden’s precinct wins are too scattered to show up.

Biden’s showing here indicates he’s wasting his money and Progressive-Democrat primary votes by staying in. He finished second—likely, only 60% of the results are in as I write—and he’s bragging about what a strong showing that is, but the first place finisher got more than twice as many votes as he did. Given the way this campaign began all those months ago, as much as Sanders won so big in Nevada, so big did Biden lose in Nevada.

Mouse over the map, the map, though.  It’s apparent that where Sanders won, he won big, especially in Las Vegas (which is where Biden had his best showing, too—a not quite so distant second). Buttigieg, on the other hand won his rural counties only narrowly.

Sanders’ urban showing, especially in contrast with his rural showing, has interesting implications for President Donald Trump if Sanders becomes the Progressive-Democratic Party nominee.

An aside a propos competence in general, and nothing to do with the candidates themselves. Recall the confusion the Nevada caucus managers had and how they dumped two separate software “aids” for counting results.  After 20 hours for results reporting, Iowa was 62% complete.  Nevada got to 60.4%–the results on which I comment above.

Update: Now, two days after the caucus, Nevada’s reporting is roughly 96% complete. The thrust of my claims remains accurate. The only material change in outcome is that Buttigieg, who was “viable” at the 60% mark, no longer is.

And, at those two days, Nevada’s caucus managers are showing their better performance compared with Iowa’s.

Only Elites Should Govern

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the view of the Left because, after all, average American individual[s are] morally and intellectually inadequate to serious and consistent conception of [our] responsibilities as…democrat[s].

That contempt for us is made explicit by The Washington Post. Writing for the Editors, Director of Graduate Studies for the Political Science and International Affairs MA Programs, Associate Professor and Assistant Chair [who’s she/Marquette trying to convince of her importance: us or Azari?] Julia Azari wrote—and she’s serious:

A better primary system would empower elites to bargain and make decisions, instructed by voters.

Because Elites know better. We’re just dumb farmers and factory workers in flyover country, can’t even learn to code. But WaPo/Azari wasn’t done.

The system as it works now…What it’s not great at is choosing among the many candidates…. A process in which intermediate representatives—elected delegates who understand the priorities of their constituents—can bargain without being bound to specific candidates might actually produce nominees that better reflect what voters want.

Because those “intermediates,” those Know Better Elites, will perforce do a better job than us unwashed masses in choosing who we hire to lead us for a cycle. But wait…

Different states jockey for influence in the official primary. … Elites try to shape the decision early on. Everyone is doing guesswork about what others want. Reforms to the process should try to make that guessing a bit more informed.

It’s not enough to freeze us commoners out of the process, even the States in our federated republic should be denied. Know Betters should be able to do more than merely “try to shape” from early stages.  Here’s the Know Betters’ freeze:

The results [of the reformed process] would be public but not binding; a way to inform elites about voter preferences.

The people’s choice is not binding on anything. I’m reminded of an old spaghetti sauce ad: Give it here, Rosa; I’ll decide, says the father to his wife at the family’s dinner table.

The piece closed with this:

Why not invest some resources in finding out what voters really think, and then allow party delegates to figure out how those opinions can translate into a winning ticket?

We do know what voters “really think:” they voted. Sadly, though, they thought wrong, and Know Betters need to correct the error. Party must decide who will be on the general election ballot, not primary election voters. Sort of like the Communist Party of China does for Hong Kong.

And this “reform” will negate average Americans‘ choices in the general election by dictating to us the Party lists for our choices.

The attitude that Elites—Know Betters—should rule was confirmed in Wednesday’s Progressive-Democratic Presidential candidate debate Wednesday night. When asked by one of the moderators in the end game of the debate whether, at a brokered convention, the candidate entering the brokerage with the plurality of delegates (elected by actual voters) should be the nominee,

…all but Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT) rejected the notion that the candidate with the “most delegates” should become the Democratic nominee.

Because they thought voters were going to make the wrong choice and nominate Sanders.

This is the gang that wants to rule over our nation.

Aside: the WaPo piece originally was headlined It’s time to give the elites a bigger say in choosing the president, but the tabloid doesn’t even have the courage of its own convictions; after some social media opprobrium, the editors collectively [sic] ducked under their desks and changed the headline to its present It’s time to switch to preference primaries. This, too, is representative of the gang that wants to rule over our nation.

Contradictions

Posted on by
Reply

Howard Kurtz, self-appointed “news media” critic and supporter of the NLMSM as gateway to what we’re permitted to know of the doings in the world, is at it again. This time it’s his piece on Attorney General William Barr’s alleged musings about resigning as AG.

Kurtz opened his piece by doing what today’s journalists do: repeating others’ rumors.

As the Washington Post reported, and others have confirmed, William Barr “has told people close to President Trump—both inside and outside the White House—that he is considering quitting over Trump’s tweets about Justice Department investigations”—that’s according to three administration officials.

Both WaPo and Kurtz only have deliberately unnamed sources for these claims, so we can’t even know whether they exist, much less assess the accuracy of their claims or their motives in making them if they do exist.

There’s more along another axis.

…just as the president is declaring himself the nation’s “chief law enforcement officer….”

Kurtz presented this as though the declaration surprised him. Does he really not understand the position?  Here’s what Article II, Section 3, of our Constitution says:

…he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed….

“He” meaning the President of the United States, that office and officer being the subject of Art II. Does Kurtz really not understand the meaning of that clause? Surely his intern explained it to him when he did Kurtz’ research for this piece. Surely, that intern also explained to Kurtz that the AG is the chief prosecutor, not the chief law enforcement officer.

Indeed, neither the office of Attorney General or the officer exist in our Constitution; these are statutory creations of Congress. The Department of Justice didn’t exist at all for 100 years after our nation’s birth. Surely, that intern explained….

It gets…better:

The press gives him [Trump] plenty of voice, of course, but it’s not unfiltered.

There’s that arrogant, self-important gateway bit again. Which is a major part of why Trump is on social media as much as he is—the media “filters” what he says and does before reporting to us and before opining to us.

Kurtz closed his piece with this:

But those [prior Presidents’ pardons and commutations] were largely treated as isolated incidents, while the press is linking the Trump pardons to a wholesale assault on the criminal justice system.

There’s that filter in action, again.

Party Control

Posted on by
Reply

James Freeman, of The Wall Street Journal worries.

Here’s hoping both reporters and rivals will focus more on the math behind the Sanders proposals—as well as his failed ideology—before allowing him to seize control of a major US political party.

I have no problem with Sanders taking control of that party. After all, the Progressive-Democratic Party is the Party of Herb Croly, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton [sic]. Sanders’ control would be a natural progression and make the situation very clear.

Listen to Those Who’ve Been There

Posted on by
Reply

Escapees—those whom some call defectors—from northern Korea are starting to take an active role in Republic of Korea politics.

…former North Koreans are throwing their hats into the ring to push South Korea to take a harder stand against the latest Kim to rule the North, Kim Jong Un. Among them is a one-time North Korean diplomat, Thae Yong-ho, who is running with Mr. Ji [Seong-ho] for South Korea’s conservative opposition party.

In particular,

Mr Ji will now campaign across South Korea, laying out his objections to the Moon administration, which he says has made too many concessions to North Korea and doesn’t take a strong enough stand on the Kim regime’s human rights abuses.

The rest should listen to those who’ve been there, suffered that, know first-hand what it is that sits just north of the DMZ.