Conclusions Jumped to After RI, OH, and TX
After a long period of finishing second to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton seems to have bounced back, though Obama still might be leading in delegate count.
My very first thought was that this means hearing a lot more flipdoodle about superdelegates.
A lot of people were hoping for a B. Obama win, which they would herald as being the end of H. Clinton, besides nullifying the effect of the superdelegates. Now, I expect them to moan that this means the fierce struggle between the two Democratic candidates will continue unabated all the way into the Convention in August, and that will weaken the Democrats' chances to win in November.
But I look at things differently. What was most important about these three most recent primaries was not so much who won as it was the enormous turnout on the Democratic side. Steve Bates reports that his caucus in Texas had as much as 10 times more attendees than in previous primaries, and I think that experience was repeated every where else as well.
I'm not worried about the Democratic contesting that must necessarily go on for several more months, while the Republicans, having already settled on their man, are resting and relaxing. This shows, on the contrary, that the Democratic Party is far richer in reasonable candidates than is the Republican Party, which has been worn threadbare by their super belligerence and meanness of recent years. And that period of "rest" will be dangerous for them, because it will be punctuated mainly by John McCain sccoping up from the mud and flinging ridiculous globs flavored by his shaky reasoning, first at one of the Democratic candidates and then at the other, his eyes swiveling wildly while he tries to gauge which one really deserves the lion's share of his nonsense. Otherwise, the Republicans are only facing another long, ho-hum period. (In the news recently was a finding that frequent, involuntary naps in the daytime are tell-tale signs of an impending stroke.)
Meanwhile these developments should also be storing up credits for the Democrats with large parts of the country, because the big states that had been chafing at having been reduced to secondary and teritary roles in choosing the nominees are now, one after the other and leading up to mighty California, seeing themselves as having crucial things to say after all in the decisions -- on the Democratic side. Those states have not been so favored at all by the forlorn, lockstepping Republicans.
With almost an embarrassment of riches, the Democrats figure to spend the coming months wrapped in excitement and fervor, regardless of what happens at the convention and never mind the superdelegates, which I consider to be an issue of little consequence, and I'm hoping and believing that this must mean their ever-gathering strength will continue right on up and through a successful Election Day -- and then on into a much hairier era of trying to clean up the massive mess that they will have inherited from their adversaries.
My very first thought was that this means hearing a lot more flipdoodle about superdelegates.
A lot of people were hoping for a B. Obama win, which they would herald as being the end of H. Clinton, besides nullifying the effect of the superdelegates. Now, I expect them to moan that this means the fierce struggle between the two Democratic candidates will continue unabated all the way into the Convention in August, and that will weaken the Democrats' chances to win in November.
But I look at things differently. What was most important about these three most recent primaries was not so much who won as it was the enormous turnout on the Democratic side. Steve Bates reports that his caucus in Texas had as much as 10 times more attendees than in previous primaries, and I think that experience was repeated every where else as well.
I'm not worried about the Democratic contesting that must necessarily go on for several more months, while the Republicans, having already settled on their man, are resting and relaxing. This shows, on the contrary, that the Democratic Party is far richer in reasonable candidates than is the Republican Party, which has been worn threadbare by their super belligerence and meanness of recent years. And that period of "rest" will be dangerous for them, because it will be punctuated mainly by John McCain sccoping up from the mud and flinging ridiculous globs flavored by his shaky reasoning, first at one of the Democratic candidates and then at the other, his eyes swiveling wildly while he tries to gauge which one really deserves the lion's share of his nonsense. Otherwise, the Republicans are only facing another long, ho-hum period. (In the news recently was a finding that frequent, involuntary naps in the daytime are tell-tale signs of an impending stroke.)
Meanwhile these developments should also be storing up credits for the Democrats with large parts of the country, because the big states that had been chafing at having been reduced to secondary and teritary roles in choosing the nominees are now, one after the other and leading up to mighty California, seeing themselves as having crucial things to say after all in the decisions -- on the Democratic side. Those states have not been so favored at all by the forlorn, lockstepping Republicans.
With almost an embarrassment of riches, the Democrats figure to spend the coming months wrapped in excitement and fervor, regardless of what happens at the convention and never mind the superdelegates, which I consider to be an issue of little consequence, and I'm hoping and believing that this must mean their ever-gathering strength will continue right on up and through a successful Election Day -- and then on into a much hairier era of trying to clean up the massive mess that they will have inherited from their adversaries.
posted by Carl (aka Sofarsogoo) | 9:15 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home