Showing posts with label Presidential Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Presidential Election. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Presidential "What If" Scenarios


Section 3 of the 20th Amendment:

Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Electoral College members meet in each of their respective states to cast their votes on December 15, 2008.

The votes of the Electors are then officially tallied and certified before Congress on January 9, 2009. Members of Congress may object to this certification.

Tuesday, June 3, 2008

What is Hillary Thinking?

Hillary Clinton supporters flocked to the Democratic Rules and Credentials Committee meeting in Washington over the weekend, to protest pretty much whatever was bound to happen there. And, well, from what I can see on tv, they really acted kind of crazy.


Hillary Supporters Fly In

Why do they hate Obama so much? And why the bad manners? It looks to me like Obama has been going out of his way to be gracious all along, while Hillary and her gang just persist in being rude and obnoxious. Check out this angry gal:

She's really mad!

None of this makes sense. If Hillary is such a strong candidate, and Obama is so weak, then why can't she beat him? And why all the complaining about the rules? Hillary and Bill had all kinds of input on these rules. Obama had zero input on the rules. But he seems to have read them and figured out how to win. Isn't that a good thing? Does this remind anyone of Hillary's Iraq NIE misfeasance? Aside from being fair, I think it's a valid indicator of competence.

All of this Hillary Anger seems to be tied to a sense of feminist resentment that is peculiar to Hillary's supporters. I don't remember any such emotions playing out so vividly when Elizabeth Dole ran for President. Until now it seemed simply amusing that Hillary continues to campaign with a straight face. But something more is going on. The borderline fanaticism of Hillary and her supporters on insisting that she is "better," their fury over her losing, mixed in with negative references to racial and class differences, and the overarching belief that the nomination is somehow being taken from her because she's a woman, have all brewed into a bitter gestalt with a momentum all it's own. It's boiling over and I don't know if even Hillary can contain it and bring her supporters back to the party in time to win in November. If she even intends to.
Meanwhile, look at what has happened to John McCain in the past nine months. For all of the press apathy toward his campaign, he has maintained a steady upward momentum. If the Democrats screw this up enough, he'll be there to take it from them in November.
If Obama wants to be a uniter, then he has a good challenge right now with his own party. And it's the women he needs to placate. The older feminists seem the most upset. He's been playing it cool by not attacking Hillary or gloating over his lead in delegates, but that's not enough. He needs to start actively and publicly reaching out to other women in the party who are in elections this year. That way he is going direct, and not allowing Hillary to become a de facto intermediary between him and large blocks of women voters.

Here's a list of women in Congress he should be talking to:
House

Tammy Baldwin, (Democrat-Wisconsin)
Melissa Bean, (Democrat-Illinois)
Shelley Berkley, (Democrat-Nevada)
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, (Democrat-Guam)
Nancy Boyda, (Democrat-Kansas)
Corrine Brown, (Democrat-Florida)
Lois Capps, (Democrat-California)
Julia May Carson, (Democrat-Indiana)1
Kathy Castor, (Democrat-Florida)
Donna M. Christensen, (Democrat-Virgin Islands)
Yvette D. Clarke, (Democrat-New York)
Susan A. Davis, (Democrat-California)
Diana L. DeGette, (Democrat-Colorado)
Rosa DeLauro, (Democrat-Connecticut)
Anna Georges Eshoo, (Democrat-California)
Gabrielle Giffords, (Democrat-Arizona)
Kirsten Gillibrand, (Democrat-New York)
Jane F. Harman, (Democrat-California)
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, (Democrat-South Dakota)
Mazie Hirono, (Democrat-Hawaii)
Darlene K. Hooley, (Democrat-Oregon)
Sheila Jackson-Lee, (Democrat-Texas)
Eddie Bernice Johnson, (Democrat-Texas)
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, (Democrat-Ohio)
Marcia C. (Marcy) Kaptur, (Democrat-Ohio)
Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, (Democrat-Michigan)
Barbara Lee, (Democrat-California)
Zoe Lofgren, (Democrat-California)
Nita M. Lowey, (Democrat-New York)
Carolyn B. Maloney, (Democrat-New York)
Doris Matsui, (Democrat-California)
Carolyn McCarthy, (Democrat-New York)
Betty McCollum, (Democrat-Minnesota)
Juanita Millender-McDonald, (Democrat-California)2
Gwen Moore, (Democrat-Wisconsin)
Grace Napolitano, (Democrat-California)
Eleanor Holmes Norton, (Democrat-The District Of Columbia)
Nancy Pelosi, (Democrat-California)
Laura Richardson, (Democrat-California)
Lucille Roybal-Allard, (Democrat-California)
Linda T. Sánchez, (Democrat-California)
Loretta Sanchez, (Democrat-California)
Janice Schakowsky, (Democrat-Illinois)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, (Democrat-Florida)
Allyson Schwartz, (Democrat-Pennsylvania)
Carol Shea-Porter, (Democrat-New Hampshire)
Louise M. Slaughter, (Democrat-New York)
Hilda L. Solis, (Democrat-California)
Jackie Speier, (Democrat-California)
Betty Sutton, (Democrat-Ohio)
Ellen O’Kane Tauscher, (Democrat-California)
Nicola S. (Niki) Tsongas, (Democrat-Massachusetts)
Nydia M. Velázquez, (Democrat-New York)
Maxine Waters, (Democrat-California)
Diane Edith Watson, (Democrat-California)
Lynn C. Woolsey, (Democrat-California)

Senate
Barbara Boxer, (Democrat-California)
Maria E. Cantwell, (Democrat-Washington)
Hillary Rodham Clinton, (Democrat-New York)
Dianne Feinstein, (Democrat-California)
Amy Klobuchar, (Democrat-Minnesota)
Mary Landrieu, (Democrat-Louisiana)
Blanche Lambert Lincoln, (Democrat-Arkansas)
Claire McCaskill, (Democrat-Missouri)
Barbara Ann Mikulski, (Democrat-Maryland)
Patty Murray, (Democrat-Washington)
Deborah A. Stabenow, (Democrat-Michigan)

We will have a woman President. It's just a matter of when. And of course, who.
Lookee here, examples from other countries for a little inspiration:
German Chancellor Angela Merkel

Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko


Argentinian President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner

Feminism has gone global. Let's not let Hillary burn down the house by confusing her personal political ambition with the progress of women in American politics. Our country has too many important things to do.

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Hillary Wins PA By 9%

Obama Continues To Close The Deal

Congrats to Hillary for a good win in Pennsylvania. Tally in PA as of 10:30 am EST Thursday is:

Clinton: 54.6%
Obama: 45.4%

That's a pretty solid win for Hillary. But what does it mean for the overall contest?In the days before the PA primary, it was painful watching the tv people try to peg some sort of over/under point for expectations that would determine whether Hillary's margin of anticipated victory would be "enough" to keep the contest alive. This sort of game is mystifying to me. The chatteratti couldn't seem to make up their minds on what the magic number should be. The idea of basing it on actual math didn't catch fire anywhere. Is it just a matter of "winning" if you do better than the very last "conventional wisdom" estimate of your vote tally? How about saying that if she closed the delegate count by 50 or 100 delegates, that would really make the race close enough to matter?

No, that will never do, because everybody knows that the race will not become close. Obama is cruising to victory and everybody knows it. But there is this pretending going on that somehow the "Super" delegates to the Democratic convention will all get together and decide to nominate Hillary anyway. Why is this story alive?

For this scenario to be viable, there is strongly implied that the party insiders have a pre-existing desire to give the nomination to Hillary instead of Barack, and that all Hillary has to do is give them a straight faced excuse to do so. Is this true? Is there this quasi-plan to get Hillary nominated? I doubt it and I hope not.

I think Hillary is full of baloney, as far as having a legitimate chance to win the nomination. The Super delegates will not vote as a block. The two thirds of them, over 500, who have declared so far are split, but have tilted toward Hillary. But the recent trend is toward Obama.

So what is Hillary's plan? Basically to stay alive and hope Obama either wrecks or runs out of gas, while her campaign plants doubts that he can win in November. At the same time she is putting forth various premises that would seem to justify her getting the nomination. Like her fuzzy math on the popular vote, and multiple "if the rules were different I'd be winning" arguments.

"Can't close the deal." This is the Hillary phrase of the week. Obama just can't seem to close the deal, so the Super delegates should vote for Hillary. This is the kind of idiocy that drives people to not bother to vote.

First of all, what's up with all the newsies parroting the same phrase? Aren't they embarrassed when they do this? It may not be plagiarism, but it is copying.

Second, why is nobody pointing out the utter lack of logic with this idea. Hillary is further away from "closing the deal" than Barack. In fact, Hillary is the one who mathematically "can't" close this deal, while Barack is cruising along toward closing it very nicely. He's winning. When you're winning, you just keep doing what you're doing until you win. You don't change a winning strategy just to win faster.

It's a 50 state contest. Just because Hillary hasn't been eliminated by a skunk rule yet, doesn't mean that she's somehow not losing. She is losing. And she has no legitimate path to victory.This contest looks like it will go the whole nine innings. There's nothing wrong with that.

What Obama needs to do is to stop reacting to Hillary so much, and just boldly steal her thunder. All of this talk of working class Catholics not voting for Obama because he's an elitist is off the mark. It's not because he's elitist. Catholics actually love elitists! Think Kennedys, Popes, The Vatican, Notre Dame. His problem is that he's not talking about their issues.

Do you know what working class people, and Hillary's old ladies, are really worried about more than health care or variable rate mortgages or Iraq or NAFTA? SOCIAL SECURITY!!!! They are afraid of not having any money when they are old. Obama should dust off Al Gore's old "lockbox" and promise to stabilize the program and GUARANTY that social security will be there for all of us when we get old.

The Republicans are vulnerable on this issue because they have raided the Treasury for the last 7 years and failed to fix social security. This is the issue that Hillary's base will really care about. And Hillary, with her "eight years in the white house" and eight more in the Senate, hasn't done Jack Squat to make social security secure.

Obama needs to steal this issue and make it his own.

Working class Catholics going the full nine innings, while adoring their elites.

It's time to change the way politicians are dealing with social security. And Medicare, too.

Can we fix it? Yes, we can!
(Credits to Bob the Builder.)

Monday, July 2, 2007

First Dude Looks Like A Lady President