Democrats
mikethemadbiologist | June 10, 2008The NY Times has an article recapping how Obama defeated Clinton in the Democratic primary. The article is a prime example of the myopia that afflicts our political press. And it's not what's in the article, but what's missing.
Iraq.
In a story of over 4,000 words purporting to describe the campaign, the word Iraq does not appear once. For a fair number of Democrats, the Iraq War featured prominently in their decision to support Obama. More accurately, Clinton's support for the Iraq War* gave Obama an opening. It might not have been a deal breaker, but it certainly encouraged Democratic…
mikethemadbiologist | June 8, 2008I've been very leary of all of the discussions of Obama as a transformative figure: I remember in Virginia when Doug Wilder was elected as the first black governor since Reconstruction and then...a few years later, a wave of conservatism washed over, well, everything. But, nonetheless, Obama's nomination does lend itself to some optimism:
Here is the fundamental tragedy of the backlash [against civil rights]: Voters like this empowered a party that decided they didn't need protection against predatory subprime mortgage fraud. Didn't need affordable, universal health insurance; made it…
mikethemadbiologist | May 30, 2008One of things I don't get is why so many Democrats are worried about the primary continuing to the Democratic convention. This is the best thing that could happen to the Democrats.
First of all, don't underestimate how important it is to rank-and-file Democrats that they can actually cast a vote that might actually mean something. But more importantly, it's actually stalled the Republican Slimedozer. Why? Because there's no oxygen left in the room for Republicans. Various people keep pointing out the Republican attack strategies that keep getting trotted out--and they're not sticking.…
mikethemadbiologist | May 15, 2008In the midst of all of the gnashing of teeth and wailing of DOOOOOMMMM!!! because of the never-ending Democratic primary, I still think a contest up to the convention is a good thing (and I've always thought so). There's one thing many pundits as well as Democratic primary partisans seem to have forgotten:
Most Democrats are thrilled that for the first time in nearly thirty years, most of us actually cast a primary vote that matters, even those of us whose favorite candidates dropped out.
As Digby notes:
I realize that a good many people think I'm living in cloud cuckoo-land, but apparently…
mikethemadbiologist | May 7, 2008I've been loathe to get into the horse race dynamics of the Democratic primary, largely bcause it's mostly pointless. But the North Carolina primary results are worth noting.
A major component of the Democratic base, African-Americans, went 91-6 for Obama in North Carolina. As Matt Yglesias notes, in the 2006 Virginia Senate election, black voters went 85-15 for James Webb (the Democrat). That means 15% of black voters actually voted for then-Senator George "Macacawitz" Allen, a man who decorated with a Confederate flag and a noose.
Clinton's done.
mikethemadbiologist | April 13, 2008I've never understood why so many liberals and progressives think the Democratic field is strong. Yes, the candidates aren't insane, but neither of them are particularly good on economic issues. There is nothing in either Clinton's or Obama's records or speeches that suggests that they will do anything significant to reduce income inequality, other than perhaps letting the Bush tax cuts expire (and Obama has even been waffling on that).
And keep in mind, that income inequality isn't just a matter of economically integrating more people into society. That's not some gushy, "it's not fair"…
mikethemadbiologist | March 19, 2008When I first read that Amy Sullivan, in honor of her new book, is guest posting at the Washington Monthly, I said to myself, dear Lord, more 'Democrats need to get religion' blather. Sadly, I was not disappointed. Already, there's a book review and a post.
I was going to leave this to Amanda's excellent post, but there are a couple other points that I think need to be raised. First, the claim that "Democrats have earned lower levels of support from religious constituencies like white evangelicals and Catholics than they otherwise should have because activists and operatives have been…
mikethemadbiologist | March 15, 2008It took them long enough, but the Democrats finally are making parliamentary maneuvers work for them, not against them. Regarding FISA, they've boxed the Republicans into a corner where Republicans would have to affirmatively argue that granting telecoms retroactive immunity would be a good idea--an unenviable job, if there were ever one. Here's how they did it (italics mine):
The RESTORE Act, H.R. 3773, passed the House last year without including retroactive amnesty for the telecom companies and sent it on to the Senate.
When the Senate took up the issue, it opted not to deal with H.R.…
mikethemadbiologist | March 13, 2008As I watch the Democratic primary lurch closely towards self-destruction, I keep asking myself why are so many Democrats projecting their fantasies onto two candidates whose feet are definitely made of clay? Granted, this has been going on since the start of the silly season (italics added):
...what I'm seeing is that many who identify strongly with a candidate hold opinions that are very different from the candidates. Now, there's [nothing] wrong with that per se: if your guiding star is to beat the Republicans, because you think any Democrat would be preferable to a Republican, then so be…
mikethemadbiologist | March 12, 2008Things look better on the FISA front: the Democrats, in an uncharacteristic fit of intelligence, agreed to compromise by attaching provisions that allow telecommunications companies to present evidence to a FISA court that they did not break the law even if the president classifies the information, thereby getting around the argument that they need retroactive immunity because they can't defend themselves in court.
Amazingly, the Democrats appear to have gotten the policy and the politics right on this. That being said, the 'Bush Dog' Democrats (who roll over and let Bush rub their tummies…
mikethemadbiologist | March 9, 2008And in a Republican stronghold no less:
Twenty minutes after unofficially becoming the Fox Valley's newest congressman-elect, Democrat Bill Foster surprised the raucous crowd at Long Island Sound Banquets in Aurora when he entered from a rear door. Seconds later, chants of "Foster, Foster" clearly announced the former Fermilab scientist was now a congressman.
Foster's party entrance befitted the stunning win over perennial GOP bridesmaid Jim Oberweis. He topped Oberweis by just more than 5,000 votes, unofficially, across the 14th Congressional District to fill the remainder of retired Rep.…
mikethemadbiologist | March 5, 2008I haven't checked yet today, but, on Democratic sites, no doubt, there will be all sorts of "BREAKING" and "UPDATE!!" posts about yesterday's primaries. But there's one story that will probably get lost in all of the primary madness, and it should concern Democrats and anyone else concerned with the integrity of voting. Voting in Ohioan Democratic strongholds is still fucked up:
Obama's campaign pressed to extend voting by one hour in two Ohio counties....
"Due to reports of ballot shortages in Cuyahoga and Franklin counties, we requested a voting extension in those counties," said Obama…
mikethemadbiologist | February 23, 2008...let's elect more scientists to office. A good place to start would be physicist and congressional candidate Bill Foster, one of the developers of the Irving-Michigan-Brookhaven proton decay detector. Darksyde has a good description of Foster's research. Go here to find out more about Foster.
mikethemadbiologist | February 21, 2008...because then it's either Huckabee or Romney. And both of those guys scare me. I have no idea if Porkgate is even a real scandal, but, if you're a Democrat, you want to run against McCain. I realize that's contrary to the conventional wisdom (which, remember, decreed that McCain's candidacy was circling around the bowl only a few months ago...).
I've listed elsewhere the reasons why I think Romney would be the toughest Republican candidate to beat, but there's something else that make Romney and Huckabee far more potent: they are likable. These guys both know how to work a room and a…
mikethemadbiologist | February 15, 2008I've criticized Democratic Congressman Reyes before, so it's worth noting when he gets something right. Here's a letter Reyes wrote to Little Lord Pontchartrain:
Dear Mr. President:
The Preamble to our Constitution states that one of our highest duties as public officials is to "provide for the common defence." As an elected Member of Congress, a senior Member of the House Armed Services Committee, and Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I work everyday to ensure that our defense and intelligence capabilities remain strong in the face of serious threats to our…
mikethemadbiologist | February 13, 2008...and rightly so:
Dare I say it, but he sounds kinda presidential....
mikethemadbiologist | February 13, 2008Really. Democrat Donna Edwards beats Corrupticrat Al Wynn.
Edwards crushed Wynn 60-36, even though Wynn was supported by the Democratic 'leadership', including Pelosi. When precinct by precinct results are released, it will be very interesting to see if voting for Edwards is correlated with voting for Obama.
Chalk one up for the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy.
Oops: I was so excited I made a typographical booboo. All better now.
mikethemadbiologist | February 7, 2008The Blue Devil wonders why Obama is raising more money than Clinton. One reason is that Obama supporters, on the whole, are significantly wealthier than Clinton supporters.
If you look at three big donor states, California, Massachusetts, and New York, on the whole, Obama has less support as you go down the income ladder. Wealthier people have more money to give, particularly since many mid-sized and small contributions are often 'impulse buys.' When you're treading water, you don't give to candidates on a whim.
This pattern also holds up in poorer states.
I'll leave it to you to figure…
mikethemadbiologist | February 6, 2008...and that's a good thing.
As long as the primaries continue, we can delay the full-blown onset of Compulsive Centrist Disorder. It also means that the candidates will have to spend their time talking at (yes, at, not to) voters instead of the pundits and media dahlings, which can only be for the better.
Unrelated silly thought of the day: Have Fox News host ScienceDebate 2008. Kidding.
mikethemadbiologist | February 4, 2008I've been relatively undecided about whom to vote for in Feb. 5 primary--and for the first time EVAH! I actually get to decide who the Democratic nominee will be. I was leaning towards Edwards. Since 2004, he was the most liberal candidate on most issues, even though his political record before then was spotty (I think that of all 'big three' Dems; why everyone was saying how strong the Democratic field was still mystifies me). Now, that Edwards is out, I plan on voting for Obama. Here's why:
Obama is far less hawkish than Clinton. In retrospect, I don't think Clinton voted against her…