Tag Archives: political parties

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.

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.

Buying An Election

Posted on by
Reply

…by buying access to and advertising on private, personal social media accounts.

Michael Bloomberg’s presidential campaign is hiring hundreds of workers in California to post regularly on their personal social-media accounts in support of the candidate and send text messages to their friends about him.

It’s the Bloomberg way. And it’s what we can expect from a Bloomberg administration: circumventing laws, unethically and amorally, if not strictly violating them, at convenience, along with going around the parameters laid out by private enterprises, again unethically and amorally if not openly violating them, for personal political gain.

It’s also illustrative that Bloomberg doesn’t even believe his own words, his own message, his own policies; he feels constrained to pay strangers to tout them, rather than persuading them with the legitimacy of his offerings to do so.  After all,

Most campaigns encourage their supporters to post on social media about their candidates, but paying them at this scale to express support on their personal accounts is unusual, experts say.

Party Influence

Posted on by
Reply

There is growing concern among some, particularly among the elites and party elders, that our political parties are losing too much power and authority over candidate selection.

[The ascents of Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT) and President Donald Trump (R)] are the latest sign that the nation’s political parties have lost influence in choosing their own presidential nominees….

Tom Rath, ex-Republican National Committee delegate, worried about this:

We’re organized around individual candidates and individual concerns. No one wants to be bothered with the party.

Joe Trippi, ex-Progressive-Democrat strategist and current CNN pundit, also expressed angst:

The parties are powerless right now and have been for a while. With both parties it’s personality- and candidate-driven, not party-driven.

And this:

Several current and former members of the Democratic National Committee said a party that once elevated Governors Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton to the White House should have found a way to place governors, who have proven electoral records, on the debate stage more often.

Because Party Know Betters should determine voter choices, not the voters. (I’ll elide questions about why a party that once elevated Senators to the White House switched to governors. I’ll also leave aside the Know Betters’ wisdom in choosing Carter.)

And this, from Elaine Kamarck, herself a long-time Democratic National Committee Know Better (as paraphrased by the WSJ):

DNC Chairman Tom Perez should have acted “by decree” to give more visibility to elected leaders such as Mr Bullock or former Governor John Hickenlooper of Colorado…. At the same time…Mr Perez had little choice but to adopt neutral qualifying criteria, because “party leaders are no longer expected to have a role in choosing the nominee.”

Wow. Just—wow. The party that claims to be all about democracy and “what people want” should act from diktat.

We can debate the wisdom of personality-driven. However, it’s clear that in order to be personality-driven, or candidate-driven, the process also has to be voter-driven. The nominees, after all, are ours, not the parties’.

And that’s all to the good. Our Constitution, after all, opens with We the People, not Our Parties.

The noise of freedom is growing louder and democracy is growing stronger for it—especially republican democracy.

Somewhat of an aside:

Self-described democratic socialist Senator Bernie Sanders and President Trump rose in politics by developing strong personal brands, while keeping only tenuous ties to—and frequently criticizing the leaders of—the parties they later sought to lead.

I’m not sure of the inconsistency here. What would we expect them to do—say, “These guys are doing a terrific job. Put me in charge instead.”

Progressive-Democrats and Litmus Tests

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressive-Democratic Party and its Presidential candidates continue to be…upset…over judicial confirmations that are going on with the Trump administration and the McConnell Senate. And they have issue-based litmus tests for what they consider acceptable (progressively so) judges and Justices. The test is in addition to their wish to change the structure of the Supreme Court to favor their ideology.

Their tests are these: the nominees must overtly favor abortion, be activists regarding the environment, and positively consider labor union matters.

Never mind that judges cannot legitimately consider these things except from within the confines of the text of our Constitution and the statute before them in any particular case. Otherwise, those matters are political items that must be determined by the political branches of our government and by Government’s employer and boss, We the People.

More: the candidates refuse to provide the lists from which they’d nominate their favored judges and Justices. They seem to lack the integrity and moral courage to do so.

In contrast, then-Presidential candidate Donald Trump published his list of judges and lawyers from which he’d draw his Justice nominees, and President Trump has drawn his Justice—and appellate court—nominees from that list.

Just to saucer and blow the matter, here’s my litmus test for judge and Justice nominees; it’s both simple and general:

  • Will you rule strictly on the basis of the text of our Constitution and of the statute before you, or will you rule on your current interpretation of what it should say?
  • Do you believe our Constitution lives through judicial rulings or that it lives through Article V and We the People?

It’s clear that Progressive-Democrats’ nominees—named or secret—would fail that litmus test.