Stupid Newsies

I just read an opinion piece from an Indiana high school teacher in which he claims,

because of my own ignorance about national politics, I feel eminently qualified to offer some opinions."

Geez, no wonder my college students come out of high school knowing jack shit.

But the guy also said,

I know as much about national politics as I do global economics. Both subjects have their own gaggle of experts, and they don’t seem to know much, either.

Now this is pure stupidity, too, but I know where it's coming from. The fact is, there are experts in global economics, and they do know what they're talking about--this guy just doesn't know who they are. The same is true of experts in national politics. So who is he really referring to? I think it's the talking heads who dominate the political chat shows, most of whom are like high school students, not knowing Jack Shit.

For example, here's the repeated theme from the New Hampshire Primary--"Clinton, coming off a disappointing third-place finish in Iowa, rebounded to first place...", or "Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire Democratic primary, overcoming a third-place finish in Iowa"

OK, for the newsie who's brain has been overheated by too much time in front of a blow dryer, let's clarify this.

1. John Edwards had 30%, Hillary Clinton had 29%. That's called a statistical dead-heat, or a virtual tie for second. A tie for second place ain't that devestating folks.
2. According to CNN, Obama won 16 delegates in Iowa, Edwards won 14, and Clinton won 15! It might seem counterintuitive that Clinton could get more delegates than Edwards, with less of the vote, but here's how it can work: Assume a state with 5 equal size precincts: Candidate A wins 3 precincts with 51% of the vote in each, while candidate B wins 2 precincts with 90% of the vote each. If you just total up all the votes from the state, B appears to have won, but because the delegates are selected from precincts, B has actually lost. In the end, it's not what percentage of the vote any candidate gets, but how many delegates, and on that scorecard, Obama, Clinton, and Edwards finished in a virtual tie for first.
3. There's no reason to think that New Hampshire voters take their cues from Iowa voters. To listen to the media tell it, everyone except Obama might as well have given up after Iowa. Like this already obsolete jewell from teh L.A. Times, "The results were a serious setback for Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton." Hell, why bother with the whole primary schedule? Let's just let that 10 or 20% of Iowans dedicated enough to participate in the caucus choose the parties' nominees.

So just because the talking heads chatter about national politics, and just because someone is introduced as the network's political analyst, that doesn't mean they're actually an expert--they just play one on TV.

A Real For-Sure Race This Time?

In recent election years, so many candidates have dropped out early after poor showings in either Iowa or New Hampshire, that shortly thereafter the nominees were effectively chosen and the remaining primaries were just pro forma events. That, of course, is the reason states have been leapfrogging their primaries. And, of course, no nominee has actually been chosen at the convention since (I think) McGovern in 1972.

But this year, with so many states having primaries both early and on the same day (Feb. 5, when 22 states decide), and with the candidates not having been able to campaign much in many of those, there's a possibility that candidates will split their wins across the states that no-one walks out with a convincing lead for the nomination. There's even a remote chance that no-one will get a majority of delegates, and so the candidate will actually be chosen at the convention.

I wouldn't bet much money on that, but it's far more likely this year than in any year since I've been casting votes (that is, since '84). If so, it would be the only good outcome of this ridiculously early primary season. There's a real danger that we'll know both party's nominees by mid-February, and will have to listen to them campaign for nearly 10 months, in which case everyone in the country will be thoroughly sick of the new president before he/she is even inaugurated. One lesson presidents learn is that they can't give major speeches on TV too often, or the public tunes them out, and a campaign requires them to appear on TV, demanding the public's attention, non-stop. Uncertainty up until late August about which two people we'll be choosing between in November would be ideal, and helpful to the future president.

But, in general, the "tsunami Tuesday" is a terrible thing. Coming so soon after Iowa and New Hampshire, where most candidates have been spending most of their time, and encompassing states from Alabama to Oregon, there is no way the candidates can campaign effectively in more than a few of these states. This is why a national primary, which some people advocate, would be a terrible idea--it would just result in candidates having to stage national campaigns at a time when they don't have the funds to do so, and would make it impossible for them to actually meet people.

I've become convinced by the advocates of rotating regional primaries. A regional primary would allow candidates to focus their money and efforts on a limited area, say 5 or 6 states, rather than trying to cover the whole country. Underfunded candidates would be less likely to be completely shut out of the process so early, and the public would still have some chance to meet the candidates. Unfortunately, most analysts seem to think we're not at crisis point yet--maybe we'll only hit the crisis point in 2012--so we're not likely to fix the problem before the next presidential campaign heats up.

There is, of course, a logical stopping point for how early the states can hold their primaries--the day after the previous midterm election. Given that we came close this time to having the first primaries nearly a full year before the general election, that outrageous outcome no longer seems as unlikely as it should be.