Keynoting BlogHer White House Project
Print This Post
Apr
22
Thinking about the outlook for today’s Democratic presidential nominee primary in Pennsylvania is like being at a birthday party, blindfolded, wrist flexed back with a dart between your thumb and index finger, trying to decide where to pin the tail on the donkey. You just can’t figure out, after having been spun around and around and around, where to place the darn dart.
In the case of the race between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, why is this so? Why are we unable to stick the dart in but good?
Sure, the candidates and their campaigns keep moving the wall and their donkey. But we expect that in politics.
As the ones holding the darts, however, the voters are unable to stick the dart in because, no matter what the campaigns do to the target they’ve embraced, the choice between these candidates represents a choice between options that can both be assessed as ones that will lead to success. Or failure. But that’s not the problem.
The problem is that Independent and Democratic voters lack a consensus as to which candidate is more likely to win, or lose, in a time when we are desperate for certainty. (This desperation to be certain results from the fast and loose play by President George Bush and his administration with our trust. Who wants to be fooled or feel like they’ve been fooled, again? Likewise, this desperation for certainty in choosing is at the root of the assertions by firm supporters for one Democratic candidate or the other that they will vote for John McCain should their instinct for where to place the dart on the donkey not get nod and McCain’s campaign plays on this desperation daily.)
Compound this problem with the fact that so many of us don’t want to trust anyone else to make the choice for us: this results in us voting in record numbers to make our preference known. But, in this election cycle, we’re pumping up the preference statements for both candidates – not a majority consensus for one over the other.
As residents of a Democratic country, we tend to think, Bring It On when it comes to participation. But with so many of us encouraged to vote and actually voting, and expressing our preference, we see how diverse our condemnations and praises can be for either candidate and imagine, maybe having fewer people consult on where to place the dart would be a better thing after all.
This deliberation process is similar to moot court argument preparation, familiar to present and former law school students. Though if you’ve ever been involved in a lawsuit, or a tug of war with a teenager or significant other, you understand what it can take to build up your side in an attempt to beat the other side:
You must line up and launch your best arguments, your secondary arguments, your if everything else fails arguments, and your “even if we take everything the other side says as true” arguments in order to compete.
Clinton and Obama seem to have an endless array of points underneath each of these categories. But they are primarily variations on the same theme: I deserve your vote and my competitor does not.
Where does that leave us? What is it that finally gets us to put the dart in the wall?
At a birthday party, it’s when the host says, no cake until we finish the game. Or, more simply, your time is up.
But either way, you can choose to decide when you’re done deciding, or someone else is going to make that choice for you and you have to shove the dart into the donkey under pressure.
The voters’ lack of consensus thus far indicates that they’re willing to let the dart be shoved into the donkey under pressure because, as is the case with the host and the party, likewise it is with elections: there will come a time when the hand will be forced.
Of course, the problem with that result in politics is how people feel when their hand is forced: as though the entire decision-making process – including the time consumed trying to figure out where to put the damn dart in the first place – was a waste. And that often leads to anger, rather than relief. Then the anger? It leads to an inability to accept the final choice and a possibility of disengagement and, ultimately, loss.
Here, on April 22, with no clear victor for the Democratic party’s nomination, the outlook is that Pennsylvania’s voters’ votes will keep the dart in the air and a consensus from forming.
But by September, will the chosen donkey have any strength left to eat the cake?
By Jill Miller Zimon at 10:24 am April 22nd, 2008 in Barack Obama, Campaigning, Democrats, Elections, Hillary Clinton, Politics, Predictions, Primary, Voting, WH2008
Comments
16 Responses to “Clinton v. Obama: Pin the tail on the donkey already!”
Leave a Reply
Posts About Pepper Pike City Council2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
You are wrong. Democrats have decisively decided who should be the nominee. The only problem is one of the kids, after having failed at pinning her tail, has decided to ruin the entire party instead of taking her toys and going home.
30 states won (to 14)
More delegates (including supers)
More voters
Clear path to delegate lead
This all indicates the picture is more clear than you or the Clinton campaign wants to let on. The inevitable party girl got beat by the upstart and the game is over – whether she like it or not. There is absolutely no indication that there is a lack of consensus (there never will be 100% agreement). You might be able to argue, given the data, that Obama has a clear mandate for the nomination.
Now if you were a desperate Hillary campaign or supporter, you surely wouldn’t do that. You’d flail about like a fish out of water trying to find some measure of justification to stay in this thing and find some scheme to try to win.
But let’s be clear here. This thing is over and has been for some time, PA results have no bearing on it.
There IS a clear victor and this type of post only exacerbates the problem which you appear to be wanting to address. I’d instead urge you to call on Hillary Clinton to step down so we get on with it. Don’t settle for others making decisions for you. Use your blog to make a statement and not just ask questions.
Don’t like Team Hillary use a PA win (however big) to draw this thing out further. TAKE A STAND!
Hey – are you trying to pin me to a donkey, Eric!?
Artful spin but this isn’t about me or what I want or who I want. I’ve learned my lesson – I will start early and stick with my choice if I want to have a horse in the race, but that’s just not the case with me this year.
This post represents my observation – what I see. Your comment represents what you see.
I know you and other readers hate it when I do that (kind of distinguishing), or do this (kind of post). But reminding me of how you dislike it and writing that, “this type of post only exacerbates the problem which you appear to be wanting to address” doesn’t resonate with me, at all.
The votes of the eligible voters who have bothered to vote show a lack of consensus, Eric. Consensus means:
1 a: general agreement : unanimity
b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned
2: group solidarity in sentiment and belief
And I’m writing about that lack of consensus.
I’m happy for you to have someone you support.
Artful spin? I’m the only one here calling it like it is. I’m not spinning a single thing. The tail has been in the donkey for some time now.
1 a: There is a general agreement that Hillary cannot catch Obama in any of the meaningful measures.
1 b: Most of those concerned have voted for or endorsed Obama.
2: Never gonna happen.
You can objectively look at this without having a horse in the race and declare Obama the victor. How else can you measure it. If your standard is all Democrats have to agree, then you should put down the pipe and enter treatment immediately.
What you CAN’T do is claim there is no clear winner in this. That just doesn’t square up to the facts. If Hillary wins by 3-5% the race is indeed over. If she wins by 5-10% (as I expect), it will go on for another two weeks until he makes up what she won in North Carolina and Indiana. Just like he did with Texas and Ohio.
There is no objective way to look at this and claim the voters have not spoken. Anything less is Clinton spin. I’m asking you to call it like you see it (either objectively as a reporter of facts or as a Hillary supporter). You do a disservice to readers by not choosing one or the other.
Sure, I support Obama. But if the shoe were on the other foot and I claimed to be calling it objectively, then I’d say he can’t catch Hillary and needs to end this by stepping down.
Eric – this would be so much more…more if we weren’t doing it in cyberspace but I know, no such luck.
What I want, I will never get. And although using a blog to take a stand seems like the thing to do from where you are, it’s not where I am. And you know me well enough to know that to tell me to go there isn’t going to make me.
Shalom Jill and Eric,
Why does everyone seem to want to take a valued vote away from a single Democrat. We had our fun in Ohio and now it’s someone else’s turn.
We all need to play nice and share, or…
Smile, breathe and go slowly.
B’shalom,
Jeff
[...] 1501 Clinton v. Obama: Pin the tail on the donkey already! [...]
Oh no baby, Hillary’s going all the way to the convention. Count on it. I get the distinct impression that she feels she can strongarm enough superduperduperdelegates to snatch victory from the jaws of irrelevancy.
She’s spent her entire adult life with one aim – to get here. And she will not slide gracefully off the stage. Will not.
By the time the bloodbath is over, McCain will be measuring for drapes in the Oval Office.
Yes, I’m a curmudgeon. Can I have Dick Feagler’s job now?
I have a hard time in declaring Obama the winner, I think about the fact that most of the states Obama have won have not been democratic contests, they’ve been caucuses.
If you look at the states where there has actually been a democratic process of one person, one vote as the November election will be then it’s a different picture.
When you look at how much money Obama spent in PA, the fact that Clinton has been declared the winner, no matter how large the percentage ends up being should say something. If people wanted this primary process to be over, if they truly had confidence that Barack Obama was “the one”, they would have voted for him. They didn’t, hence this continues and I agree with Bad American, Hillary will not drop out. This ones going to the Convention.
I’m not going to pretend I’m a hard core Hillary fan though I did vote for her and I do still believe she would have a better chance of beating McCain in the fall, which is supposed to be the main goal, electing a Democrat as president. I’d also like for what has happened to make states really take a look at their primary process and for the whole concept of caucuses and super delegates be looked at with the goal of creating something that is more democratic than what we have now.
Really well expressed, Lisa Renee – thank you. Especially this: “I’d also like for what has happened to make states really take a look at their primary process and for the whole concept of caucuses and super delegates be looked at with the goal of creating something that is more democratic than what we have now.”
Seriously, Lisa Renee – what can individuals do to press for that?
But even if the caucus states are left out of the picture, Obama has won more primaries, more delegates from primaries, and more of the popular vote from primaries, than Hillary Clinton has, so I think Lisa Renee’s argument doesn’t hold water.
I have doubt’s about McCain’s ability to win Ohio against Obama. Despite Hillary’s win here, I think Clinton supporters, for the most part, will line up behind the Democrat nominee. McCain is not as organized and doesn’t have the campaign cash that George W. Bush had. Bush’s GOTV effort in Ohio was the most organized, most energetic, and most successful GOTV effort I’ve seen on the GOP side in Ohio. I doubt McCain will be able to match that, especially in light of how dispirited the base felt after the scandals and corruption hit them square in the face in 2006. Meanwhile, Obama has out-organized and out-fundraised the Clinton machine. Clinton thought Super Tuesday would end the contest in her favor, and didn’t have organizations on the ground in the states that immediately followed Super Tuesday. Obama had organizations in all the states. So, despite the fact that Obama is far to the left of mainstream America, I saw Sherrod Brown beat Mike DeWine in 2006, so I know it’s entirely possible, though by no means certain, for Obama to beat McCain in Ohio. I wonder how McCain would win the presidency without Ohio.
On the flip side, if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination after the superdelegates weigh in, I guarantee McCain beats her in Ohio. Remember those dispirited Republican voters who didn’t bother to vote in 2006 after scandals and corruption were unveiled among some prominent Republican officeholders in this state? Well, many in the Republican base feel (me, included) that the Clintons embody scandal and corruption. McCain looks squeaky clean by comparison. The Republican base will be energized like you wouldn’t believe, and McCain wouldn’t need the most organized GOTV effort in order to turn out Republicans. The young voters who haven’t yet established ingrained voting habits, who were energized by Obama will not be enthralled by Clinton, so there will be a drop-off in the youth vote. There will be some who perceive that superdelegates stole the nomination from Obama, and will have to be physically dragged to the polls to vote for Clinton, and perhaps, once they’re in the voting booth, some of them will opt for McCain. Clinton does not talk of unifying people of all persuasions as Obama does, and independent voters will be heavily courted by McCain, and will remember that, of the two, Hillary is the more partisan, while it is well known that McCain has worked both sides of the aisle, so McCain is the less polarizing of the two. Despite Clinton’s win in Ohio over Obama, I would be very surprised if she can beat McCain. I’m not sure how Hillary wins the presidency without Ohio.
So, from my Republican vantage point, I don’t see the Democrat race the way Lisa Renee does.
Are you saying, Daniel, that you would vote for Obama, you yourself that is? That’s what I’m reading between the lines, unless I missed a direct statement (and I apologize if I did).
McCain’s problem in Ohio is Bush – as would be any Republican’s problem here. Ohio’s economic situation, as it relates to those things about which the government can take and has taken action on, has worsened. Why on earth would Ohioans want more of that?
Distinguish McCain all you want, but he will owe the GOP something HUGE if he were to win the White House and that reality overshadows any likelihood that he’ll be anything like he was in 2000 when he appeared to be more sentient (sorry, I couldn’t help myself – he has just appeared so out of it lately – it disturbs me enormously that people would vote for him, the way he is performing).
While Obama will try to fudge the distinctions between Bush and McCain, and some voters will fall for that ploy, I’m informed enough to know that McCain is not Bush no matter how much Obama repeats the two names as one.
I find Obama very likable, but I disagree with his political views. If I were to invite people over for a Super Bowl party at my place, and tell everyone to bring some munchies, of the three top presidential candidates, I’d most likely invite Obama. He seems like a person that would be fun to hang with.
I’m not going to vote for Obama, though, because, ideologically, there is more common ground between myself and McCain than there is between myself and Obama.
In 2006, I voted for Mike DeWine, not Sherrod Brown. Sherrod Brown is far more to the left than I am. Likewise, Barack Obama is far more to the left than I am. I only meant to say that it’s not unfathomable that someone on the left is capable of winning Ohio over a centrist candidate.
I think that’s important to note, Daniel, because otherwise, I think you give the impression that you were up for grabs when really, you weren’t or aren’t. Thanks for clarifying.
For the record, McCain is enough like Bush and all the people with whom he’ll surround himself are enough like Bush that I could never vote for him – well – never say never, but it’s extremely unlikely.
I’ve decided who I’m voting for, yes, but how will undecideds vote? Are my views on the matter just a bunch of hogwash to be dismissed out of hand?
What’s unfolding right now? The Clinton campaign is trying to lie and cheat their way to the nomination. Carville was on TV saying Indiana should be the tiebreaker that decides the nomination. That just makes me see red. What tie? How can there be a tiebreaker when there is no tie? Obama has a clearcut lead. Why does the Clinton campaign have the power to say which states matter in deciding the nomination and which don’t? Why does the outcome in Indiana mean more to the nomination than the outcome in North Carolina? Why single out one state and gloss over the aggregate results of all the other contests? Clearly, the Clintons aren’t playing by the rules and are trying to change them.
I absolutely can’t stand the Clintons (and the whole cast of characters they bring with them). If Hillary is the nominee, I will absolutely be on the warpath to deny her the White House.
So far, Ohio Republicans have been lethargic. I think I’ve slacked off, too, in recent months. I won’t be slacking off if Hillary is nominated. I’ll be on fire. Do you think I’ll be an anomaly? I think I’ll be joined by hundreds of thousands of Republicans who will also catch fire, and we will overturn every rock to find every vote we can against Clinton.
Dismiss my rantings out of hand if you want, but I truly think Hillary is TOAST!
Dear Mrs. Zimon:
Is pin the tail on the donkey over? What, no goodie bag?
His Royal Highness,
The King
I don’t know, King – I’m not taking my blindfold off until September.