As of the end of last month, Sam is looking for consulting work in nonprofit fundraising, direct response and direct marketing.
He's a good strategist, copywriter, donor relations person, major gifts solicitor, etc.
So, contact him if interested: ydavis2053@comcast.net
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Who will be the next president?
Now that the race for the Democratic party's nomination is settled, we can begin asking the question, "Who will be the next president?" And, we may also ask, "Does it matter very much?"
The historic nature of the presumptive nomination of Barack Obama, the first African American to win a major party nod for president, will soon be overshadowed by the perceived leadership qualities of Obama versus John McCain.
As Gene Healy has pointed out in The Cult of the Presidency, Americans have come to regard the presidency as a sort of national messiahship, and over the last century most occupants of the office have responded by feeding the illusion one fallible human being can wave a magic wand and solve all our problems.
Both Obama and McCain will play to that century-old illusion, albeit in different ways. Once in office, either Obama or McCain will set about expanding the power and influence of the office, as have most of their predecessors starting with Teddy Roosevelt. And, at some point during his first or second term, a majority of Americans will be disillusioned thoroughly and long for the next national messiah to arrive on the scene.
And the cycle will repeat itself until we Americans grow up a bit and understand that individuals can solve their own problems, left alone and reasonably free to do so by government, but others cannot. This is the fundamental message both of classical liberalism and Buddhism, philosophies with very different cultural points of origin.
Who the next president is will matter in terms of whether there is more or less mischief visited on peaceful individuals here and people living in other countries, but not in epic, sweeping change. Obama in particular is attempting to depict this presidential election in that way, as epic legend in the making. McCain's approach is dialed a bit lower, but the same cultural motif is there. Seeing oneself as an epic hero or messiah is, by definition, demented, so what are we to make of the psychological profiles of these two men, one of whom will be the next president?
The relevant question we should ask ourselves, rather than who should be president, is "Why do we need an elected monarch at all? Isn't it time we moved on to a different, less authoritarian structure?"
My solution would be the plural presidency as pioneered in Switzerland. But only a change in our cultural expectations can bring about something as sane and rational as a committee exercising federal executive power by consensus. That change has to come from us, ordinary Americans.
Otherwise, this boom-and-bust cycle of high expectation, magical illusion and delusion, and bitter disappointment will continue for a long time.
The historic nature of the presumptive nomination of Barack Obama, the first African American to win a major party nod for president, will soon be overshadowed by the perceived leadership qualities of Obama versus John McCain.
As Gene Healy has pointed out in The Cult of the Presidency, Americans have come to regard the presidency as a sort of national messiahship, and over the last century most occupants of the office have responded by feeding the illusion one fallible human being can wave a magic wand and solve all our problems.
Both Obama and McCain will play to that century-old illusion, albeit in different ways. Once in office, either Obama or McCain will set about expanding the power and influence of the office, as have most of their predecessors starting with Teddy Roosevelt. And, at some point during his first or second term, a majority of Americans will be disillusioned thoroughly and long for the next national messiah to arrive on the scene.
And the cycle will repeat itself until we Americans grow up a bit and understand that individuals can solve their own problems, left alone and reasonably free to do so by government, but others cannot. This is the fundamental message both of classical liberalism and Buddhism, philosophies with very different cultural points of origin.
Who the next president is will matter in terms of whether there is more or less mischief visited on peaceful individuals here and people living in other countries, but not in epic, sweeping change. Obama in particular is attempting to depict this presidential election in that way, as epic legend in the making. McCain's approach is dialed a bit lower, but the same cultural motif is there. Seeing oneself as an epic hero or messiah is, by definition, demented, so what are we to make of the psychological profiles of these two men, one of whom will be the next president?
The relevant question we should ask ourselves, rather than who should be president, is "Why do we need an elected monarch at all? Isn't it time we moved on to a different, less authoritarian structure?"
My solution would be the plural presidency as pioneered in Switzerland. But only a change in our cultural expectations can bring about something as sane and rational as a committee exercising federal executive power by consensus. That change has to come from us, ordinary Americans.
Otherwise, this boom-and-bust cycle of high expectation, magical illusion and delusion, and bitter disappointment will continue for a long time.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Cognitive surplus
A great video, about 16 minutes long, on this blog: http://www.donorpowerblog.com/
Watch it if you have the opportunity. It might not change your life, but it will cause some under-used synapses to fire.
Watch it if you have the opportunity. It might not change your life, but it will cause some under-used synapses to fire.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
More is better
As we drag along toward the 2008 presidential election, it becomes more apparent with every public utterance of the Three Senators that a single, all-powerful executive is a bad idea whose time has passed. Who may have a better idea?
The Swiss. They do pretty superbly with chocolate, bank account privacy and precision watches. But that's not all. They believe, when it comes to government chief executives, more is better.
The Swiss have a number of long-term governance and political successes under their belt. Not having a power-crazed single executive is one of them. Their "plural presidency" seems to work well in a country focused on creating domestic peace, even-handed international relations and the widest possible prosperity. Perhaps it sounds bit strange because no major Western nation has a plural executive, although a case can be made that in parliamentary democracies the cabinet system has certain features that are similar.
After digesting Gene Healy's new book The Cult of the Presidency, I found myself thinking that a plural executive may well be the best solution to avoid a future American Caesar, given the perceptions and expectations Americans now place on the office after 100 years of "heroic" presidents starting with Teddy Roosevelt.
Julius and Octavian Caesar were able to finally destroy the Roman Republic by subverting the dual executive Consul system, with of course the connivance and acquiescence of the Senate. Along the way, they created a mythology of imminent and continuing crisis which, of course, only a strong leader would be able to solve.
Octavian's speeches sound very much like those any conservative Republican candidate would make today, while his uncle Julius comes over more like a liberal Democrat. The parallels to contemporary American politics are stunning and very disturbing.
America only avoided an increasingly-oppressive "elective monarchy" until Teddy Roosevelt came to office, and then only because certain key occupants of the office -- Grover Cleveland comes to mind instantly -- had a strong and abiding respect for the limitations placed on the federal government and the presidency itself by the framers of the Constitution. With the advent of the 20th century, and novel "progressive" interpretations of the role of government in society, those restraints went out the window.
Most of the presidents who have followed the first Roosevelt have expanded the power of the office, and fanned the expectations of the people as to what a president can and should be allowed to do. Most from Teddy to Wilson to Roosevelt to Bush II have thrived on having a huge imminent threat to fight, just like the Caesars 2000 years ago.
It should not surprise anyone aware of this history what Bush II has attempted. Hardly any president of the last century (Gerald Ford may be the only one) has actively sought to roll back the widened powers of the office. Almost all have sought to stretch executive powers further. At least two -- Nixon and Bush II -- have actually claimed to be above the law, in a similar sense as ancient kings and emperors.
So, a Swiss-style plural presidency looks very, very good as a means of avoiding a repeat of some very tragic history. I believe that whether Obama, Clinton or McCain arrives in the Oval Office the afternoon of January 20, 2009, he or she will set about aggrandizing the powers of the office still further, all in the name of the public good, however spun and packaged.
The Swiss. They do pretty superbly with chocolate, bank account privacy and precision watches. But that's not all. They believe, when it comes to government chief executives, more is better.
The Swiss have a number of long-term governance and political successes under their belt. Not having a power-crazed single executive is one of them. Their "plural presidency" seems to work well in a country focused on creating domestic peace, even-handed international relations and the widest possible prosperity. Perhaps it sounds bit strange because no major Western nation has a plural executive, although a case can be made that in parliamentary democracies the cabinet system has certain features that are similar.
After digesting Gene Healy's new book The Cult of the Presidency, I found myself thinking that a plural executive may well be the best solution to avoid a future American Caesar, given the perceptions and expectations Americans now place on the office after 100 years of "heroic" presidents starting with Teddy Roosevelt.
Julius and Octavian Caesar were able to finally destroy the Roman Republic by subverting the dual executive Consul system, with of course the connivance and acquiescence of the Senate. Along the way, they created a mythology of imminent and continuing crisis which, of course, only a strong leader would be able to solve.
Octavian's speeches sound very much like those any conservative Republican candidate would make today, while his uncle Julius comes over more like a liberal Democrat. The parallels to contemporary American politics are stunning and very disturbing.
America only avoided an increasingly-oppressive "elective monarchy" until Teddy Roosevelt came to office, and then only because certain key occupants of the office -- Grover Cleveland comes to mind instantly -- had a strong and abiding respect for the limitations placed on the federal government and the presidency itself by the framers of the Constitution. With the advent of the 20th century, and novel "progressive" interpretations of the role of government in society, those restraints went out the window.
Most of the presidents who have followed the first Roosevelt have expanded the power of the office, and fanned the expectations of the people as to what a president can and should be allowed to do. Most from Teddy to Wilson to Roosevelt to Bush II have thrived on having a huge imminent threat to fight, just like the Caesars 2000 years ago.
It should not surprise anyone aware of this history what Bush II has attempted. Hardly any president of the last century (Gerald Ford may be the only one) has actively sought to roll back the widened powers of the office. Almost all have sought to stretch executive powers further. At least two -- Nixon and Bush II -- have actually claimed to be above the law, in a similar sense as ancient kings and emperors.
So, a Swiss-style plural presidency looks very, very good as a means of avoiding a repeat of some very tragic history. I believe that whether Obama, Clinton or McCain arrives in the Oval Office the afternoon of January 20, 2009, he or she will set about aggrandizing the powers of the office still further, all in the name of the public good, however spun and packaged.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Real hope for real change
“Shakyamuni Buddha who attained enlightenment countless kalpas ago, the Lotus Sutra that leads all people to Buddhahood, and we ordinary human beings are in no way different or separate from one another. To chant Myoho-renge-kyo with this realization is to inherit the ultimate Law of life and death. This is a matter of the utmost importance for Nichiren’s disciples and lay supporters, and this is what it means to embrace the Lotus Sutra.”—Nichiren Daishonin, The Heritage of the Ultimate Law of Life.
Nichiren (1222-1262 CE) founded the Nichiren school of Buddhism. A large number of his writings, most letters of encouragement to his followers, are extant. A significant number of them have been translated into English and other languages by the SGI Buddhist lay association, which has members in 190 countries and territories, including the U.S.
The most important point of Nichiren Buddhism is that each human being has the potential to be “a Buddha,” or become enlightened. This is a daily-life oriented philosophy, based on the premise of cause and effect and that all our thoughts, words and deeds reflect our state of life at a given moment. Nichiren formulated the phrase Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, based on the Lotus Sutra, for practitioners to chant daily, sharing the practice with others, as he did.
Empowerment of the individual is thus the core of Nichiren’s teachings, which he saw as a rejuvenation and fulfillment of the highest teaching of the first historic Buddha, Shakyamuni Gautama. The individual does not look to others as the source of happiness and salvation, but to him or her self. This dramatically contrasts with other religious teachings that place the ultimate reality outside human beings and teach that only through intermediaries such as clergy can the individual connect with that ultimate reality.
The underlying philosophy of the dominant world culture today is the belief that others are the source of our happiness and our suffering. This distortion results in a spiraling cycle of suffering for individuals, families, and ultimately nations. Societies based on this distortion, as ours are at present, are plagued with constant violence, wars, avarice, and other manifestations of behavior Buddhists designate as “the six lower worlds,” or “evil” states of life which deny the dignity and sanctity of human life. Moreover, most leaders in our societies perpetuate the notion that our problems and solutions lie outside us, and that elites of one kind or another must guide and direct everyone else. We are not encouraged to take responsibility for our own lives, and in fact encouraged to surrender our innate power over ourselves to others. The cycle thus continues.
This year Americans will elect a new president and members of Congress, as well as various state and local officials. Most of those candidates will offer up policies that ultimately stem from this basic distortion. They will present themselves as the guides we must have to lead us to happiness and fulfillment, in one way or another. But essentially they will offer nothing else than to urge us to trust them, and to surrender a large part of our innate personal power over our own lives to them. This is not unique to political leaders; many in other areas of society do the same.
It is no accident that throughout recorded history, society’s leaders, with only a few exceptions, have had the same modus operandi as our current ones. The core philosophy, expressed at different times in varying ways, has been disempowerment of the individual and empowerment of elites. The practice of Nichiren Buddhism represents a radical, yet completely peaceful revolution – a human revolution conducted by individuals alone and in voluntary association with each other – that will some day obviate politics as practiced now.
The wave of change of millions of individuals will also bring about the effective end of war, and a new consciousness of the inter-related, and inter-dependent nature of all life. This will happen despite, not on account of, the activities of the institutions that today seem to be in charge of society. This vast change in the culture of a significant part of humanity will spill over into every aspect of society. The world of a century from now, two centuries from now, five centuries from now will be virtually unrecognizable to the war, conflict and suffering plagued planet we now inhabit. This universal cultural change is already underway through the lives of 16 million or more individuals practicing Nichiren Buddhism in the SGI lay association today.
Nichiren (1222-1262 CE) founded the Nichiren school of Buddhism. A large number of his writings, most letters of encouragement to his followers, are extant. A significant number of them have been translated into English and other languages by the SGI Buddhist lay association, which has members in 190 countries and territories, including the U.S.
The most important point of Nichiren Buddhism is that each human being has the potential to be “a Buddha,” or become enlightened. This is a daily-life oriented philosophy, based on the premise of cause and effect and that all our thoughts, words and deeds reflect our state of life at a given moment. Nichiren formulated the phrase Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, based on the Lotus Sutra, for practitioners to chant daily, sharing the practice with others, as he did.
Empowerment of the individual is thus the core of Nichiren’s teachings, which he saw as a rejuvenation and fulfillment of the highest teaching of the first historic Buddha, Shakyamuni Gautama. The individual does not look to others as the source of happiness and salvation, but to him or her self. This dramatically contrasts with other religious teachings that place the ultimate reality outside human beings and teach that only through intermediaries such as clergy can the individual connect with that ultimate reality.
The underlying philosophy of the dominant world culture today is the belief that others are the source of our happiness and our suffering. This distortion results in a spiraling cycle of suffering for individuals, families, and ultimately nations. Societies based on this distortion, as ours are at present, are plagued with constant violence, wars, avarice, and other manifestations of behavior Buddhists designate as “the six lower worlds,” or “evil” states of life which deny the dignity and sanctity of human life. Moreover, most leaders in our societies perpetuate the notion that our problems and solutions lie outside us, and that elites of one kind or another must guide and direct everyone else. We are not encouraged to take responsibility for our own lives, and in fact encouraged to surrender our innate power over ourselves to others. The cycle thus continues.
This year Americans will elect a new president and members of Congress, as well as various state and local officials. Most of those candidates will offer up policies that ultimately stem from this basic distortion. They will present themselves as the guides we must have to lead us to happiness and fulfillment, in one way or another. But essentially they will offer nothing else than to urge us to trust them, and to surrender a large part of our innate personal power over our own lives to them. This is not unique to political leaders; many in other areas of society do the same.
It is no accident that throughout recorded history, society’s leaders, with only a few exceptions, have had the same modus operandi as our current ones. The core philosophy, expressed at different times in varying ways, has been disempowerment of the individual and empowerment of elites. The practice of Nichiren Buddhism represents a radical, yet completely peaceful revolution – a human revolution conducted by individuals alone and in voluntary association with each other – that will some day obviate politics as practiced now.
The wave of change of millions of individuals will also bring about the effective end of war, and a new consciousness of the inter-related, and inter-dependent nature of all life. This will happen despite, not on account of, the activities of the institutions that today seem to be in charge of society. This vast change in the culture of a significant part of humanity will spill over into every aspect of society. The world of a century from now, two centuries from now, five centuries from now will be virtually unrecognizable to the war, conflict and suffering plagued planet we now inhabit. This universal cultural change is already underway through the lives of 16 million or more individuals practicing Nichiren Buddhism in the SGI lay association today.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
A Strictly Tactical Analysis
While it is very likely now that Hillary Clinton cannot overtake Barack Obama’s increased lead in delegates to the upcoming Democratic convention, the rational question superdelegates should be asking is “Who is most likely to be able to defeat John McCain in November?”
Before slicing and dicing that, it’s instructive to remember that for much of the 2004 campaign, John Kerry looked entirely competitive with George Bush. Kerry’s political strategy was to campaign nationally pretty much as he has campaigned in Massachusetts. The Republican strategy was run a campaign like they’d run one in Texas or Tennessee or Idaho.
As it turned out, the Swift Boat smear orchestrated by Karl Rove, the perception that Kerry was an out-of-touch elitist, and the still-lingering hyper-concern about terrorism, all combined to give GW four more years in the White House. In retrospect, Kerry was not the best candidate the Democrats could have fielded. Likely John Edwards would have been better. Al Gore might have actually won a rematch.
Oddly enough, the Democrats are in the same boat, no pun intended, this year. Like Kerry, Obama has already given the Republicans enough ammunition to paint him as an elitist who secretly condescends to the small town “Bubbas” who account for a significant part of lower middle income voters. He has that 20-year association with Jeremiah Wright which, although he has condemned Wright, will come back to haunt him as a judgment issue – i.e., how did he avoid figuring out that Wright is a loony racist for two decades as a parishioner? And, if he really didn’t know that, why not? Obama is obviously an intelligent, gifted man, rising from Illinois state legislator to presidential contender in a handful of years.
Obama has gotten a virtual pass from Hillary Clinton on the Wright-connected questions. He will get no such pass from McCain and the Republican strategists. It may well feature in any number of political commercials we see and hear in coming months.
Moving on to the purely analytical statistics now. While it is true Obama has polled more votes and gained more delegates than Hillary, the New York Senator has won in the big states, some of which at least they must win to capture the presidency. Obama’s victories, interestingly, are mostly in states which can be counted on to vote Republican come November.
Polls show Clinton beating McCain in states like Ohio and close in Florida, states that are shown going for McCain against Obama in the same polls. Clinton is correct in her assessment that she has won among the constituencies that Democrats must have to forge a winning coalition in November. There is polling evidence that significant numbers of Clinton Democrats plan to desert the party in November if Hillary is not the nominee. This group profiles very much like the “Reagan Democrats” who propelled the former actor to two landslide victories.
Like Kerry, Obama’s support comes mostly from the Democratic base. While there is evidence some Republicans and some independents are trending toward Obama, it’s not overwhelming. And there is polling evidence that those voters would be offset, or more than offset, by disaffected Clintonistas voting for McCain.
So what happens in November? Here’s my best guess, based on the factors described above.
If Obama is the Democratic nominee: The campaign will, electorally, be a replay of 2004, McCain picking up some states like Pennsylvania and Michigan that the Republicans haven’t carried since Reagan. The popular vote will be in the range of McCain 52-55%, Obama 45-48%. McCain will pick up about a third of Clinton Democrats. Clinton’s lukewarm commitment to support Obama if he’s the nominee is just that: lukewarm. If she loses the nomination, the next day she will suddenly rediscover a 100% commitment to being U.S. Senator from New York. She will give zero real help to Obama, and hope secretly for his defeat so that, at 64, she can run against McCain in 2012 when he’ll be 76 and maybe even not be running.
The Republicans will, as noted, make this contest about character and judgment. Although there are plenty of questions to go all around on that, GOP strategists have proved particularly adept at assassinating the character of opposition candidates. And, as noted, there is the nice guy, war hero image McCain enjoys that will be hard to destroy in a few months, even if the Democratic strategists knew how to go for the jugular, which they haven’t shown they do for a number of years now.
If Clinton is the Democratic nominee: Several red states, notably Ohio, Missouri and Florida, will be up for grabs. Clinton will grind McCain down mostly on social issues, glossing over her near-total agreement with him about defense and foreign policy. She will probably win, with a popular vote in the range of Clinton 51-52%, McCain 48-49%. In other words, it will be close, but Hillary will prevail. In this scenario, disaffected Obama supporters, of whom there will be many, will simply sit out the election. But enough of them will turn out and vote Democratic anyway that no blue state will be threatened.
The red states Hillary wins will be on the strength of her coalition-building and “Reagan Democrats,” whom she will split with McCain. She will win among women overwhelmingly. Unlike almost every other major Democratic officeholder, Hillary Clinton knows how to go for the jugular and appear reasonable while doing it. She will employ this tactic highly effectively on McCain.
National polls at this moment seem to back Hillary's contention she is the stronger nominee. She is ahead by two or three points against McCain while Obama is dead even. More importantly, she is ahead in some big states the GOP took last time out. Odd that leading Democrats are now calling for Hillary to leave the race, ensuring the nomination of a candidate who will more than likely lose to the Arizona senator. An election that, as of January 1, looked "in the bag" for the Democrats has now become a race in which they're betting on the wrong horse.
It's noteworthy that George McGovern has been among those prominent Democrats calling for Hillary to withdraw. And as we all know, McGovern is an expert on how to win a national election - right, George?
Summing up my projection, if Obama is the Democratic nominee, the next president is John McCain. If Clinton is the Democratic nominee, the next president is Hillary Rodham Clinton. Since it now seems inevitable Obama will be the Democrats' standard bearer, that means McCain is headed for the Oval Office, in my view.
My analysis is based purely on observing the game. Personally, I don’t like any of the three major candidates on the issues and it does not matter to me which one ends up in the White House. I further happen to believe the presidency, as an institution, is out of control and has been for a century; that whoever occupies the office will continue to abuse and expand executive power at the expense of the Bill of Rights and constitutionally-prescribed government.
For me, it’s like a choice between Julius Caesar and Napoleon, and there’s not really any variety in that scenario.
Before slicing and dicing that, it’s instructive to remember that for much of the 2004 campaign, John Kerry looked entirely competitive with George Bush. Kerry’s political strategy was to campaign nationally pretty much as he has campaigned in Massachusetts. The Republican strategy was run a campaign like they’d run one in Texas or Tennessee or Idaho.
As it turned out, the Swift Boat smear orchestrated by Karl Rove, the perception that Kerry was an out-of-touch elitist, and the still-lingering hyper-concern about terrorism, all combined to give GW four more years in the White House. In retrospect, Kerry was not the best candidate the Democrats could have fielded. Likely John Edwards would have been better. Al Gore might have actually won a rematch.
Oddly enough, the Democrats are in the same boat, no pun intended, this year. Like Kerry, Obama has already given the Republicans enough ammunition to paint him as an elitist who secretly condescends to the small town “Bubbas” who account for a significant part of lower middle income voters. He has that 20-year association with Jeremiah Wright which, although he has condemned Wright, will come back to haunt him as a judgment issue – i.e., how did he avoid figuring out that Wright is a loony racist for two decades as a parishioner? And, if he really didn’t know that, why not? Obama is obviously an intelligent, gifted man, rising from Illinois state legislator to presidential contender in a handful of years.
Obama has gotten a virtual pass from Hillary Clinton on the Wright-connected questions. He will get no such pass from McCain and the Republican strategists. It may well feature in any number of political commercials we see and hear in coming months.
Moving on to the purely analytical statistics now. While it is true Obama has polled more votes and gained more delegates than Hillary, the New York Senator has won in the big states, some of which at least they must win to capture the presidency. Obama’s victories, interestingly, are mostly in states which can be counted on to vote Republican come November.
Polls show Clinton beating McCain in states like Ohio and close in Florida, states that are shown going for McCain against Obama in the same polls. Clinton is correct in her assessment that she has won among the constituencies that Democrats must have to forge a winning coalition in November. There is polling evidence that significant numbers of Clinton Democrats plan to desert the party in November if Hillary is not the nominee. This group profiles very much like the “Reagan Democrats” who propelled the former actor to two landslide victories.
Like Kerry, Obama’s support comes mostly from the Democratic base. While there is evidence some Republicans and some independents are trending toward Obama, it’s not overwhelming. And there is polling evidence that those voters would be offset, or more than offset, by disaffected Clintonistas voting for McCain.
So what happens in November? Here’s my best guess, based on the factors described above.
If Obama is the Democratic nominee: The campaign will, electorally, be a replay of 2004, McCain picking up some states like Pennsylvania and Michigan that the Republicans haven’t carried since Reagan. The popular vote will be in the range of McCain 52-55%, Obama 45-48%. McCain will pick up about a third of Clinton Democrats. Clinton’s lukewarm commitment to support Obama if he’s the nominee is just that: lukewarm. If she loses the nomination, the next day she will suddenly rediscover a 100% commitment to being U.S. Senator from New York. She will give zero real help to Obama, and hope secretly for his defeat so that, at 64, she can run against McCain in 2012 when he’ll be 76 and maybe even not be running.
The Republicans will, as noted, make this contest about character and judgment. Although there are plenty of questions to go all around on that, GOP strategists have proved particularly adept at assassinating the character of opposition candidates. And, as noted, there is the nice guy, war hero image McCain enjoys that will be hard to destroy in a few months, even if the Democratic strategists knew how to go for the jugular, which they haven’t shown they do for a number of years now.
If Clinton is the Democratic nominee: Several red states, notably Ohio, Missouri and Florida, will be up for grabs. Clinton will grind McCain down mostly on social issues, glossing over her near-total agreement with him about defense and foreign policy. She will probably win, with a popular vote in the range of Clinton 51-52%, McCain 48-49%. In other words, it will be close, but Hillary will prevail. In this scenario, disaffected Obama supporters, of whom there will be many, will simply sit out the election. But enough of them will turn out and vote Democratic anyway that no blue state will be threatened.
The red states Hillary wins will be on the strength of her coalition-building and “Reagan Democrats,” whom she will split with McCain. She will win among women overwhelmingly. Unlike almost every other major Democratic officeholder, Hillary Clinton knows how to go for the jugular and appear reasonable while doing it. She will employ this tactic highly effectively on McCain.
National polls at this moment seem to back Hillary's contention she is the stronger nominee. She is ahead by two or three points against McCain while Obama is dead even. More importantly, she is ahead in some big states the GOP took last time out. Odd that leading Democrats are now calling for Hillary to leave the race, ensuring the nomination of a candidate who will more than likely lose to the Arizona senator. An election that, as of January 1, looked "in the bag" for the Democrats has now become a race in which they're betting on the wrong horse.
It's noteworthy that George McGovern has been among those prominent Democrats calling for Hillary to withdraw. And as we all know, McGovern is an expert on how to win a national election - right, George?
Summing up my projection, if Obama is the Democratic nominee, the next president is John McCain. If Clinton is the Democratic nominee, the next president is Hillary Rodham Clinton. Since it now seems inevitable Obama will be the Democrats' standard bearer, that means McCain is headed for the Oval Office, in my view.
My analysis is based purely on observing the game. Personally, I don’t like any of the three major candidates on the issues and it does not matter to me which one ends up in the White House. I further happen to believe the presidency, as an institution, is out of control and has been for a century; that whoever occupies the office will continue to abuse and expand executive power at the expense of the Bill of Rights and constitutionally-prescribed government.
For me, it’s like a choice between Julius Caesar and Napoleon, and there’s not really any variety in that scenario.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
On that day I will still have the same challenges in life I had the day before. I will have the same strengths, weaknesses, hopes, dreams, shortcomings and victories I had the day before.
My life will still be 100% my responsibility. It will not matter very much who sits in the Oval Office that day.
Whoever that may be -- he or she -- that individual is not our national messiah, is not our national nanny, is not our national drill sergeant.
We are each in charge of our own lives. We maintain maximum control of our own lives in part by understanding this and by realizing that nothing external, and most especially not politics, has the fundamental power to change our lives.
Only we can do that, each of us for himself or herself, and work voluntarily with others to effect change around us.
Any other nostrum is delusional, now and on Wednesday, January 21, 2009, and on every other day.
My life will still be 100% my responsibility. It will not matter very much who sits in the Oval Office that day.
Whoever that may be -- he or she -- that individual is not our national messiah, is not our national nanny, is not our national drill sergeant.
We are each in charge of our own lives. We maintain maximum control of our own lives in part by understanding this and by realizing that nothing external, and most especially not politics, has the fundamental power to change our lives.
Only we can do that, each of us for himself or herself, and work voluntarily with others to effect change around us.
Any other nostrum is delusional, now and on Wednesday, January 21, 2009, and on every other day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)