And The Beat Goes On

Just so people know where our present political symbols come from here

the irony? There are many.

IMO, both parties are equally guilty of trying to spin issues of race, gender, fairness, and economics to their advantage.

Of course they are! OK, I don't know about "equally guilty" in objective-quantity terms, but both do it. However, as a practical matter the DNC is identity-politics based with a humongous number of oft-conflicting factions, whereas the GOP is more ideology-oriented with a smaller number of factions.

The genesis of the current problem is not one single thing. Simplistic thinking, that. It's a combination of factors, of which identity politics is one major element. The DNC's attempts at "guiding" the primary process from the back room roped up the ring, and the identity-politics chickens are now refereeing the fight and cheering on the fighters.

The chickens are coming home to roost in that the DNC certainly set this trap for themselves, and the dangers were predictable. Indeed, I copiously predicted them over the last two years. (Toldja so!) And they're continuing the damages with a VERY identity-based battle.

There is simply NO denying that Clinton going full-tilt with the "let every vote count" meme that was the mantra of the party in 2000 is another chicken coming home.

Tully summed it up really well in my absence. My take on the "both parties do it" is as he describes it too- identity politics are present on both sides but it's more of a particular tactic on the Dem sides just because of the nature of the party and its many coalitions. IOW I'm not claiming that the GOP is more virtuous, just that it mostly has different sorts of vices.

And as Tully also mentions, the warring factions are now difficult for the party bigs to referee- so I was getting at it from that angle too, because from where I sit the kinds of vitriole that are normally aimed at the GOP (racism, sexism, etc) are now getting flagged in the intramural match. It's like, instead of the unseated delegate flap being a fly in the ointment, the other preexisting conditions make it more like a match in a can of gasoline.

My view of politics in general is that it's mainly an orchestration of people's emotions anyway- so the way I see it, the Democratic/liberal voters are like one section of the orchestra which responds to certain cues and the GOP/conservative voters are another section that respond to different cues. I think a lot of what we respond to, sometimes with righteous indignation or even repulsion in campaigns, has been conditioned into us- and I see that coming back to bite Clinton in the case of any discussion of her demographic strengths which the voters now hear as a 'typical Republican strategy to appeal to bigots.'

The reason I find this relevant to the MI/FL debacle is just that it's a conflation of several things that the Dems have brought on themselves. Fielding two historical candidates in the same cycle, I think, is proving to be more of a problem than anyone anticipated (in hindsight it seems obvious, I think.) The losing candidates supporters are feeling the sting more than they would if it was just about ideology or some other quality of the candidate. I think people are starting to feel that their group is being taken for granted- and that doesn't bode well for party loyalty.

And then there's the fact that it has become about ideology as well. On paper both candidates are almost indistinguishable on the left/right spectrum, but voting record, past associations, rhetoric and base of support, plus the youth and ostensible reform aspect of Obama's campaign have certainly set him up as the favorite of the left wing while Clinton's still firmly DLC.

If it helps, for balance, I'll again say that there are some similar dynamics going on in the GOP and also some different ones that aren't exactly flattering. It's just that I think there's more of a 'perfect storm' of several factors coming back round on the Democrats right now; of course the ameliorating factors are there too, since it's an environment and cycle that greatly favors the Dem candidate (so more leeway for internal or unforced errors) and Obama's undoubtedly expanding the base by motivating people, esp young voters.

And in the end, if you still think I'm being impartial in my assessment, that's OK too- I don't pretend to be a fan of the Democratic party and I won't deny that I'm enjoying the show.

Brian, I generally agree with what you said. Beyond the Florida vote, I wonder what the Republican reaction would have been to Gore's invasion of Afghanistan (I think he would have gladly taken the warrior role and sent Clinton out to convince Europe). I think you could even have a case that split government might have produced better reults than what we have had so far which is why I am in favor of splitting the ticket now. I even think Gore would have put pressure on Saddam and his weakness on the matter including Iran would have made things tough for him in 2004. I also wonder about Gaddafi, NK and what if anything Gore would have done in Africa. One last point, 9/11 might have hurt him more than Bush given the problems left hanging during the Clinton White House especially if Berger was still around.

The what if's are important if only to show the sentiments of Democrats and Republicans THEN to what they are today. That is not imaginary, but painfully real. And we got to this point in less than six years marking it from 9/11.

And yes, Simon is right given the Consitutionality of our present system. If Obama wins any victory, I suspect that may very well be on popular numbers only, given the strategy board as it looks now.

Further, the fact that Bush won the election without the highest total number of national votes is, IMO, a legitimate source of dissatisfaction. I understand and accept that the electoral college is the way it goes....

Well, it's only a legitimate source of dissatisfaction if one first rejects the legitimacy of the existing constitutional arrangement. I wouldn't support the conception of a national popular vote for picking the President as an original matter, let alone this late in the game, which I guess means that, should Obama lose the popular vote but win the Presidency as a result of the geographic distribution of votes, I won't be in a position to criticize that result (or at least, the mechanism that produces that result). Likewise, if he wins the popular vote and loses the election, that's fine by me, although I think Obama supporters will declare all-out war on the electoral college if that happens, given the messianic bent of Obama's campaign.

"When someone says their heart needs lifting, don't ask how come, ask how high."