This is the website of Abulsme Noibatno Itramne (also known as Sam Minter). Posts here are rare these days. For current stuff, follow me on Mastodon



April 2008

Please? Can we? Please?

The original site, linked from MyDD, looks like it is no longer has the bit quoted, but the relevant bit is still here:

History Lesson
(Jerome Armstrong, MyDD)

A historically minded reader has suggested that the Democrats end their fratricidal battle by taking a cue from what the Whigs did in the 1836 election when they couldn’t decide between the Northern candidate and the Southern candidate: they ran both. The Democrats could do this, too: put Obama on the ballot in the Western states in which he did well and put Clinton on the ballot in the big Democratic states like Ohio where she won solid victories. Of course, if successful, this strategy would split the electoral votes three ways and nobody would get a majority. Then the newly elected House would choose the President, with each state getting one vote. The Democrats will almost assuredly control the new House. Of course, the battle between Obama and Clinton would then be reignited in the House Democratic caucus so the Democratic members of the House would end up choosing the nominee. But that is going to happen now anyway. However, by doing it that way, the House Democrats would be sure their choice would become President, without having to bother beating a pesky and popular Republican. Of course, the party would need enough discipline to make sure every member of the House voted for the winner of the House caucus vote and normally herding Democrats is like herding cats. The one downside to this strategy is that it didn’t work for the Whigs in 1836; Martin van Buren, Andrew Jackson’s Vice President, won a majority of the electoral vote outright.

I can’t describe just how exciting a scenario like the above would be to watch play out. Of course, the results of 1836 pretty much killed that strategy forever… uh… until now?

Nah, of course not. But it would be fun damn it!

Lunch Article

Another good article on the democratic race while I do the lunch thing. Another one outlining the possibilities, and the main path to a win Clinton has remaining.

The Clinton Campaign and the “Popular Vote”
(Bob Ostertag, Huffington Post)

In all of this, just about the only thing that is dead certain is that if this plays out as it is shaping up to, the end game of the Democratic primary is going to be one ugly soap opera. The most likely scenario? Picture Obama winning the nomination from a convention that cannot even decide who has the right to attend, and ends with hundreds of angry Clinton delegates storming the exits and denouncing their party. Unless something changes very soon, I am thinking of spending August on my yearly trip to the Alaskan wilderness where the only folks I can talk to are wild animals who have never heard of American politics.

I can’t let myself even hope for so much fun at the convention, I’d only end up dissapointed. :-)

Two Articles

Two really long and detailed articles giving good insight into the Democratic race:

The Law of Rules
(Josiah Lee Auspitz, Washington Monthly)

For almost four decades I have been inflicting on friends, family, airplane seatmates, straphangers on the subway and other random acquaintances my stupefying knowledge of party rules. To me this is a subject so enthralling that I cannot understand anyone’s being indifferent to it.

I have written scholarly articles and op-ed pieces, testified, lobbied and litigated, presented maps, tables and charts, consulted, advised and given interviews on the topic. About twenty-five years ago I directed a project analyzing party rules in all the fifty states. My young assistant in this task later foreswore politics and entered a monastic order.

In other words, I am a complete party rules bore. I suppose it would be more dignified to present myself as a political scientist, but I have no illusions.

Still, every two or three quadrennial elections events conspire to give rules minutiae a wider audience. This is one of those rare moments.

(via Kevin Drum, Washington Monthly)

No Really. Hillary Has a Decent Shot
(Sean Oxendine, RealClearPolitics)

It has become something of a pastime among polling geeks like myself to use Jay Cost’s primary vote calculator to predict the outcome of the Democratic race. Most who have played with it have come up with some kind of scenario where Hillary leads in the popular vote.

Now, I don’t mean to pat myself on the back, but a few days before Jay’s calculator came out, I had my own estimate coming to this conclusion. But this calculator provides some more concrete ways of estimating the popular vote. Let’s look at this in more detail (especially given all the calls for Hillary to drop out).

(via Instapundit)