Do we live in a democracy?
The common answer to that question that makes everyone feel good has long been “yes”. Democracy, or governing by the “will of the people”, sounds great. But, the real answer to that questions is “no”, or at best a “maybe” or “kinda-sorta”.
We are definitely not a small-d democracy where everyone votes directly on everything, and the majority always wins. If we were, then we wouldn’t have things like the Electoral College when selecting a president – a system where winning the popular vote does not guarantee victory. Also the US Senate wouldn’t be set up the way it is with each state having the same number if Senators regardless of population. The Senate wouldn’t allow something like the filibuster where one person can effectively shut down legislation.
No, we don’t have direct democracy in this country. Instead we have that “maybe” or “kinda-sorta” version of democracy called “representative democracy” where voters select individuals to represent them in the decision making process.
Picking those people is the voter’s responsibility, but we are often playing in a rigged game.
With both major parties hosting their national conventions in the coming weeks more focus than at any time in recent history is on the process of nominating candidates for the Presidency of the United States.
Republicans started out well when it comes to a democratic process bosting a whopping 17 candidates seeking the party’s nomination.
By the end however they’ve ended up with a candidate, Donald Trump, who is so unpopular among many in the party establishment that there is a simmering #NeverTrump movement of party officials who would like nothing more than to figure out how they could steal the nomination from him. They pursue this even though he is a candidate who helped lead to record setting turnout all across the country in the Republican Primary. They’ve even been actively recruiting for a candidate, any candidate, who didn't even run this election cycle because the second place candidate, Ted Cruz, is almost equally as unpopular.
What the actual voters want is a seeming afterthought.
Things on the Democrat side, aren’t much better though.
Bernie Sanders made the race for the Democrat nomination much more competitive than many thought possible. However, in the end he did not have much of a chance because of something patently undemocratic about the process – superdelegates. Superdelegates are high ranking current and former party officials who are unbound by the primary voting results. They can support any candidate regardless of how the voters vote. Hillary Clinton’s overwhelming lead among superdelegates gave her a sense of inevitability.
Yes, Clinton won the overall popular vote in the primary making it more “democratic”, but in an endeavor like politics a manufactured sense of inevitability can become a self fulfilling prophecy.
Last week, the Pew Research Center released a telling set of data showing how all this has led to a breakdown in the candidate selection process resulting in more “unsatisfying” candidates than have been seen in over two decades.
Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the least “satisfying” candidates since 1992. Trump matches the low water mark of 40% set by Republican George H.W. Bush that year, and Hillary Clinton also has the lowest satisfaction level for a Democrat since that same election. Somewhat ironically, her 43% satisfaction rating as a candidate bests only that of her husband Bill Clinton who had an abysmal 33% in his first run for the Oval Office.
It may come as a surprise to many, but political parties are actually private organizations. They are free to set up their rules as they wish and select their nominees effectively however they want. Their goal is to win elections so that their people can become the arbiters of the power that comes with elected office. Being small-d democratic is somewhere way down on the priority list.
Unfortunately for voters, this election cycle the processes in both parties have resulted in suboptimal candidates. That leaves the question, do we live in a democracy?
This post first appeared in this week's editionof the Herald Weekly at HuntersvilleHerald.com.
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Thursday, July 14, 2016
Friday, May 6, 2016
Why Sanders might be the most formidable Dem against Trump
Nobody thought we'd be here. Nobody.
It's not just the mind boggling fact that Donald Trump is going to be the Rebublican nominee, but also the fact that the Republican primary has ended before the Democrats fully nailed down their choice.
But here we are.
So, let's take a look at the Democrat race so far and look at it through the lens of who would make the best candidate against "The Donald".
Should it be Hillary or Bernie?
Sure, all the polls and the conventional wisdom say either one will beat the "Blowhard Billionaire", but at this point national polls are really meaningless and this race will be anything but conventional.
Still, we here at aShortChronicle like our numbers and so we took a look at the results of the Democratic Party primaries to date to see if anything stood out when looking at a general election.
It was a bit more interesting than you might think.
Take a look at the below chart which has the delegate counts from the actual primaries and caucuses. It does not include Super Delegates. The color scheme and assumptions are explained below.
In the general election all that really matters is the Electoral College. The color coding is based on how states are likely to vote in the Electoral College based on the results from the 2012 election.
The primaries marked in yellow don't factor in the analysis because they don'thave Electoral College votes.
The states marked in red are states where Romney won by 10 points or more. There are a couple of exceptions where it was only 8 or 9 points, but it is still likely that Trump wins these states even if he significantly underperforms Romney's result from last cycle.
Said another way, the outcome of the Democratic primary is meaningless in the red states when it comes to the general election. For example, Clinton's biggest delegate haul to date was in Texas, but does anyone believe Texas will be blue this year even with Trump as the Republican nominee?
The blue states are likely Democrat Electoral College states. Those are divided into three shades of blue. Darkest blue is a solid Sanders primary win. Medium blue is a solid Clinton primary win. Light blue is where the difference in their delegate count from the primary was 3 or less.
Here's the first interesting thing.
When you add up the delegates from these blue states, Sanders actually has 57 more delegates chosen to date by actual voters in solid Democrat states.
The green states were coded this way actually because Trump is the Republican candidate. Both Michigan and Pennsylvania are likely blue states for any other Republican. However, they are also states with high concentrations of blue collar white voters. That's a group that has been particularly drawn to Trump's populist message - particularly on trade. That's the same message Sanders has been using on that issue.
If Clinton is the nominee instead of Sanders, some of the Sanders voter may end up in the Trump camp.
Now, before you roll your eyes too much on that one. Read this.
On the morning of the Pennsylvania primary, former state Governor Ed Rendell was on NPR downplaying Clinton's expectations. He actually said that Clinton might not get as many voters in the state as she did in 2008 against Obama. She didn't come close. Rendell actually said that was in part because a decent chunk of that white, blue collar demographic had gone to Sanders, and yes, to Trump as well. Overall Dem turnout in Pennsylvania was off about 29% from 2008 and Clinton received 342k fewer votes than she did 8 years ago.
Even if you discount that theory and treat Michigan and Pennsylvania as blue states, Sanders has 37 more delegates chosen by voters in blue states.
The purple states are the familiar swing states in recent elections. Clinton has a solid advantage in those states. That alone could be why she is the best choice. The unanswered question here is will Sanders voters be guaranteed Clinton voters in the general if their guy is not the nominee.
That's probably less likely than if it was ths other way around. This was also pointed out on a recent NPR segment. In 2008, Clinton worked hard to get her supporters behind Obama. She was true blue, life long Democrat. Sanders isn't. He was until this election an independent who proudly called himself a socialist. For him and his followers, pushing to support Clinton will be seen as selling out.
All of this begs the question, who really is the best candidate to take on Trump?
At this point in the race it is hard to say it is definitely not Sanders.
It's not just the mind boggling fact that Donald Trump is going to be the Rebublican nominee, but also the fact that the Republican primary has ended before the Democrats fully nailed down their choice.
But here we are.
So, let's take a look at the Democrat race so far and look at it through the lens of who would make the best candidate against "The Donald".
Should it be Hillary or Bernie?
Sure, all the polls and the conventional wisdom say either one will beat the "Blowhard Billionaire", but at this point national polls are really meaningless and this race will be anything but conventional.
Still, we here at aShortChronicle like our numbers and so we took a look at the results of the Democratic Party primaries to date to see if anything stood out when looking at a general election.
It was a bit more interesting than you might think.
Take a look at the below chart which has the delegate counts from the actual primaries and caucuses. It does not include Super Delegates. The color scheme and assumptions are explained below.
In the general election all that really matters is the Electoral College. The color coding is based on how states are likely to vote in the Electoral College based on the results from the 2012 election.
The primaries marked in yellow don't factor in the analysis because they don'thave Electoral College votes.
The states marked in red are states where Romney won by 10 points or more. There are a couple of exceptions where it was only 8 or 9 points, but it is still likely that Trump wins these states even if he significantly underperforms Romney's result from last cycle.
Said another way, the outcome of the Democratic primary is meaningless in the red states when it comes to the general election. For example, Clinton's biggest delegate haul to date was in Texas, but does anyone believe Texas will be blue this year even with Trump as the Republican nominee?
The blue states are likely Democrat Electoral College states. Those are divided into three shades of blue. Darkest blue is a solid Sanders primary win. Medium blue is a solid Clinton primary win. Light blue is where the difference in their delegate count from the primary was 3 or less.
Here's the first interesting thing.
When you add up the delegates from these blue states, Sanders actually has 57 more delegates chosen to date by actual voters in solid Democrat states.
The green states were coded this way actually because Trump is the Republican candidate. Both Michigan and Pennsylvania are likely blue states for any other Republican. However, they are also states with high concentrations of blue collar white voters. That's a group that has been particularly drawn to Trump's populist message - particularly on trade. That's the same message Sanders has been using on that issue.
If Clinton is the nominee instead of Sanders, some of the Sanders voter may end up in the Trump camp.
Now, before you roll your eyes too much on that one. Read this.
On the morning of the Pennsylvania primary, former state Governor Ed Rendell was on NPR downplaying Clinton's expectations. He actually said that Clinton might not get as many voters in the state as she did in 2008 against Obama. She didn't come close. Rendell actually said that was in part because a decent chunk of that white, blue collar demographic had gone to Sanders, and yes, to Trump as well. Overall Dem turnout in Pennsylvania was off about 29% from 2008 and Clinton received 342k fewer votes than she did 8 years ago.
Even if you discount that theory and treat Michigan and Pennsylvania as blue states, Sanders has 37 more delegates chosen by voters in blue states.
The purple states are the familiar swing states in recent elections. Clinton has a solid advantage in those states. That alone could be why she is the best choice. The unanswered question here is will Sanders voters be guaranteed Clinton voters in the general if their guy is not the nominee.
That's probably less likely than if it was ths other way around. This was also pointed out on a recent NPR segment. In 2008, Clinton worked hard to get her supporters behind Obama. She was true blue, life long Democrat. Sanders isn't. He was until this election an independent who proudly called himself a socialist. For him and his followers, pushing to support Clinton will be seen as selling out.
All of this begs the question, who really is the best candidate to take on Trump?
At this point in the race it is hard to say it is definitely not Sanders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)