Archive for January, 2008
Tuesday, January 29th, 2008 by Ted Rall
COLUMN: INDEPENDENTS GO HOME
Open Primaries Are Killing Democracy
Check out this political mystery: Liberals, a.k.a. the Democratic base, are angry. They're so angry that they tried to unseat senior senator and former vice presidential candidate Joe Lieberman in 2006, who had become synonymous with bipartisanship. Bipartisanship, hell. They're in the mood for payback.
So why is Barack Obama, a bipartisan accommodationist who promises to appoint Republicans to his cabinet and praises Ronald Reagan, the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination? Why is Hillary Clinton, militant centrist of the DLC, running a close second?
Mystery #2: Liberal primary voters are obsessed with choosing a nominee who can win the general election in November. And yet, according to a hypothetical head-to-head match-up, neither Obama nor Clinton qualifies. The most electable Democrat, found the most recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. match-up poll, is John Edwards.
"Edwards is the only Democrat who beats all four Republicans, and McCain is the only Republican who beats any of the three Democrats [in November 2008]," says Keating Holland, CNN's polling director. But Edwards hasn't won a single primary.
What's going on? Why are angry, electability-oriented Democrats voting for the two candidates least likely to win--candidates who want to sing Kumbaya with the Republicans?
As we discussed last week, the media has frozen out Edwards because their corporate owners are scared of him. But there's a second reason that the Democratic primaries have "gotten terribly off track," in the words of The New York Times' Paul Krugman.
A lot of non-Democrats are voting in Democratic primaries.
Twenty-three states now have so-called "open primaries." Registered independents are allowed to vote in either the Democratic or Republican primary. "What's everybody talking about now? Independents," Morris Fiorina, a professor of political science at Stanford says. Huge numbers of Democratic primary voters aren't Democrats at all: 20 percent in the Iowa caucuses, 44 percent in New Hampshire, 23 percent in South Carolina.
As you might expect, candidates whose appeal crosses party lines have benefited from these open primaries. "Obama is winning independents, McCain is winning independents," says Professor Fiorina.
Political scientists differ over the moderating effect of open primaries, but history paints a clear picture. There hasn't been a left-wing Democratic nominee since George McGovern in 1972, or an overtly right-wing Republican one since Barry Goldwater in 1964. (Though they governed differently, Reagan and Bush II campaigned as uniters, not dividinators.) Both parties see open primaries as part of a "big tent" strategy--people who vote for party X in the primaries are said to be likelier to vote for Party X's nominee in the fall. Open primaries are also supposed to winnow out "extreme" candidates (see McGovern and Goldwater, above) while selecting for those with broad appeal to the overall electorate. But the advantages of open primaries--which have yet to be statistically proven--come at a steep price.
As Larry Gerston writes in the San Jose Mercury-News, "people who identify as Democrats or Republicans operate with different opinions than independents. Partisans tend to have stronger opinions on leading issues, are more aware of current events, have well-developed political value sets and tend to be more involved politically on an ongoing basis. For most independents, politics is much more a spectator sport. These folks are more amused than committed, tend to know less about the leading issues and candidates, and commonly operate with a less defined set of political values."
Independents complain that "closed primaries"--Democratic primaries are only open to Democrats, Republican primaries to Republicans--deny them a voice. In truth, registered independents choose not to vote in primaries. There is no practical reason to register as an independent. If you want to switch from one party's primaries to the other's, all you have to do is fill out a form. And, in the general election, you can vote for any party regardless of party affiliation.
The potential for mischief, on the other hand, is enormous in open primaries: conservatives voting for the worst Democrat, liberals for the worst Republican. Even "honest" independents queer the process by reducing the chances of a hardcore liberal or conservative winning their party's nomination. This year, they're boosting Obama and McCain, neither of whom have generated much enthusiasm from their party's bases. (If these two men face off in November 2008, McCain will enjoy an edge since the GOP tends to better coalesce behind its nominees. Republican party loyalists will also find McCain's right-wing voting record to their liking. Obama, on the other hand, repeatedly voted to fund the Iraq War.)
Polarization is good for democracy. Voters may claim not to like mudslinging campaign battles, but they turn out in greater numbers when the parties nominate candidates whose views are significantly different. In 2000, Gore and Bush were seen as so ideologically indistinct that many liberals cast protest votes for Ralph Nader. (Little did we know!) Turnout was 51.3 percent. It went up to 55.3 percent in 2004, high water mark of the red-blue divide.
Moderate nominees, er, moderate the enthusiasm of the liberals and conservatives who make up the two major parties' bases. When your party's standardbearer doesn't promise much, there isn't a lot to win. Nor is there much to lose if the enemy party's nominee seems relatively reasonable. The Democratic and Republican parties, already so similar on issues like trade, immigration and abortion, become more broadly indistinguishable. Elections offer fewer, less relevant options. Citizens tune out. Over time, some will start to yearn for another, less free but more effective form of government.
Open primaries, wrote Gerston, are "akin to casual sports fans having a voice in the selection of college playoff schedules or newly arrived residents of a town affecting the decision of a long-disputed, festering public policy issue." If we want to get rid of the two-party system, great. Until then, let Democrats pick the Democratic nominee and Republicans choose the Republican nominee. If independents want to play too, let them fill out a form.
COPYRIGHT 2008 TED RALL
Open Primaries Are Killing Democracy
Check out this political mystery: Liberals, a.k.a. the Democratic base, are angry. They're so angry that they tried to unseat senior senator and former vice presidential candidate Joe Lieberman in 2006, who had become synonymous with bipartisanship. Bipartisanship, hell. They're in the mood for payback.
So why is Barack Obama, a bipartisan accommodationist who promises to appoint Republicans to his cabinet and praises Ronald Reagan, the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination? Why is Hillary Clinton, militant centrist of the DLC, running a close second?
Mystery #2: Liberal primary voters are obsessed with choosing a nominee who can win the general election in November. And yet, according to a hypothetical head-to-head match-up, neither Obama nor Clinton qualifies. The most electable Democrat, found the most recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. match-up poll, is John Edwards.
"Edwards is the only Democrat who beats all four Republicans, and McCain is the only Republican who beats any of the three Democrats [in November 2008]," says Keating Holland, CNN's polling director. But Edwards hasn't won a single primary.
What's going on? Why are angry, electability-oriented Democrats voting for the two candidates least likely to win--candidates who want to sing Kumbaya with the Republicans?
As we discussed last week, the media has frozen out Edwards because their corporate owners are scared of him. But there's a second reason that the Democratic primaries have "gotten terribly off track," in the words of The New York Times' Paul Krugman.
A lot of non-Democrats are voting in Democratic primaries.
Twenty-three states now have so-called "open primaries." Registered independents are allowed to vote in either the Democratic or Republican primary. "What's everybody talking about now? Independents," Morris Fiorina, a professor of political science at Stanford says. Huge numbers of Democratic primary voters aren't Democrats at all: 20 percent in the Iowa caucuses, 44 percent in New Hampshire, 23 percent in South Carolina.
As you might expect, candidates whose appeal crosses party lines have benefited from these open primaries. "Obama is winning independents, McCain is winning independents," says Professor Fiorina.
Political scientists differ over the moderating effect of open primaries, but history paints a clear picture. There hasn't been a left-wing Democratic nominee since George McGovern in 1972, or an overtly right-wing Republican one since Barry Goldwater in 1964. (Though they governed differently, Reagan and Bush II campaigned as uniters, not dividinators.) Both parties see open primaries as part of a "big tent" strategy--people who vote for party X in the primaries are said to be likelier to vote for Party X's nominee in the fall. Open primaries are also supposed to winnow out "extreme" candidates (see McGovern and Goldwater, above) while selecting for those with broad appeal to the overall electorate. But the advantages of open primaries--which have yet to be statistically proven--come at a steep price.
As Larry Gerston writes in the San Jose Mercury-News, "people who identify as Democrats or Republicans operate with different opinions than independents. Partisans tend to have stronger opinions on leading issues, are more aware of current events, have well-developed political value sets and tend to be more involved politically on an ongoing basis. For most independents, politics is much more a spectator sport. These folks are more amused than committed, tend to know less about the leading issues and candidates, and commonly operate with a less defined set of political values."
Independents complain that "closed primaries"--Democratic primaries are only open to Democrats, Republican primaries to Republicans--deny them a voice. In truth, registered independents choose not to vote in primaries. There is no practical reason to register as an independent. If you want to switch from one party's primaries to the other's, all you have to do is fill out a form. And, in the general election, you can vote for any party regardless of party affiliation.
The potential for mischief, on the other hand, is enormous in open primaries: conservatives voting for the worst Democrat, liberals for the worst Republican. Even "honest" independents queer the process by reducing the chances of a hardcore liberal or conservative winning their party's nomination. This year, they're boosting Obama and McCain, neither of whom have generated much enthusiasm from their party's bases. (If these two men face off in November 2008, McCain will enjoy an edge since the GOP tends to better coalesce behind its nominees. Republican party loyalists will also find McCain's right-wing voting record to their liking. Obama, on the other hand, repeatedly voted to fund the Iraq War.)
Polarization is good for democracy. Voters may claim not to like mudslinging campaign battles, but they turn out in greater numbers when the parties nominate candidates whose views are significantly different. In 2000, Gore and Bush were seen as so ideologically indistinct that many liberals cast protest votes for Ralph Nader. (Little did we know!) Turnout was 51.3 percent. It went up to 55.3 percent in 2004, high water mark of the red-blue divide.
Moderate nominees, er, moderate the enthusiasm of the liberals and conservatives who make up the two major parties' bases. When your party's standardbearer doesn't promise much, there isn't a lot to win. Nor is there much to lose if the enemy party's nominee seems relatively reasonable. The Democratic and Republican parties, already so similar on issues like trade, immigration and abortion, become more broadly indistinguishable. Elections offer fewer, less relevant options. Citizens tune out. Over time, some will start to yearn for another, less free but more effective form of government.
Open primaries, wrote Gerston, are "akin to casual sports fans having a voice in the selection of college playoff schedules or newly arrived residents of a town affecting the decision of a long-disputed, festering public policy issue." If we want to get rid of the two-party system, great. Until then, let Democrats pick the Democratic nominee and Republicans choose the Republican nominee. If independents want to play too, let them fill out a form.
COPYRIGHT 2008 TED RALL
In Contempt: Cartoon Delayed Until This Afternoon
Tuesday, January 29th, 2008 by Kevin Moore
I finished the durn thing, but ran out of time and steam before I could post it. I thought, "Oh, I'll just post it after I put Owen to bed." Then, as I laid there with him waiting for him to drop off, I dropped off myself. These things happen.
When I get home from work I can do it then. Until then, please tell me what these two political cartoons on President Bush's state of the union address are trying to say. Why did both Bok and Higgins portray Speaker of the House Pelosi surrounded by children? Yes, I know, she did that herself when she took the speaker's gavel last year. But is that the most relevant way to characterize her in this context? I thought Higgins' portrayal of Cheney behind the bars and stripes was clever, and worthy of a cartoon unto itself. But how does it work in this context? These cartoons are examples of what I consider ersatz caricature. They have no central joke, so the cartoonist is throwing whatever desperate gag he/she can think of at the canvas and hoping it gets a laugh.
When I get home from work I can do it then. Until then, please tell me what these two political cartoons on President Bush's state of the union address are trying to say. Why did both Bok and Higgins portray Speaker of the House Pelosi surrounded by children? Yes, I know, she did that herself when she took the speaker's gavel last year. But is that the most relevant way to characterize her in this context? I thought Higgins' portrayal of Cheney behind the bars and stripes was clever, and worthy of a cartoon unto itself. But how does it work in this context? These cartoons are examples of what I consider ersatz caricature. They have no central joke, so the cartoonist is throwing whatever desperate gag he/she can think of at the canvas and hoping it gets a laugh.
LAST LAST LAST LAST LAST!
Tuesday, January 29th, 2008 by Mikhaela Reid
I didn't even watch the State of the Union Speech last night, but I just LOVE hearing the words "Bush" and "Last" in the same sentence. What a great way to start the day!
CNN Readers Give CNN Well-Deserved Rasberry
Tuesday, January 29th, 2008 by Barry DeutschFrom CNN’s website:
Within minutes of posting a story on CNN’s homepage called “Gender or race: Black women voters face tough choices in South Carolina,” readers reacted quickly and angrily. […] Many took umbrage at the story’s suggestion that black women voters face “a unique, and most unexpected dilemma” about voting their race or their gender.
CNN received dozens of e-mails shortly after posting the story, which focuses largely on conversations about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that a CNN reporter observed at a hair salon in South Carolina whose customers are predominantly African-American. […]
An e-mailer named Tiffany responded sarcastically: “Duh, I’m a black woman and here I am at the voting booth. Duh, since I’m illiterate I’ll pull down the lever for someone. Hm… Well, he black so I may vote for him… oh wait she a woman I may vote for her… What Ise gon’ do? Oh lordy!”
Another CNN reader pointed out that (since the media has written off John Edwards) white men also are, by CNN’s standards, choosing between voting their sex or voting their race. Yet, mysteriously, CNN isn’t writing stories about that.
(Curtsy: The Debate Link)
Story Time with Governor Sebelius
Monday, January 28th, 2008 by August J. PollakWith all due respect to Ezra's recent praise of her (and her alleged VP potential), if that was Kathleen Sebelius' coming out party then I think she needs to go back in for a little longer. Thankfully, the State of the Union address was just as boring, but the Democratic response still shouldn't put me to sleep. That Sebelius' "good night; god bless" at the very end actually reminded me of my grammy tucking me in after reading a storybook to me is probably not the kind of image the Democrats were looking for.
Look, I'm sure Gov. Sebelius is a great person and a wonderful politician, but last year's response was Jim Webb, who kept you on the edge of your seat with a combination of a compelling speech and the knowledge that he's batshit and could have just gone straight for the cameraman's throat at any point during the rebuttal because he's actually a shaved Animal from Dr. Teeth and the Electric Mayhem. There's simply no comparison.
new cartoon
Monday, January 28th, 2008 by Shannon Wheeler
Re: my last post. Those were great suggestions on the intro. I'll post a link to the book asap and the final edit soon.
The new comic is up...
The new comic is up...
Fan Postcard about my Mitt Romney cartoons
Monday, January 28th, 2008 by Mikhaela Reid
(click to enlarge)
My awesome art director at the Metro Times, Sean Bieri, passed this along this fan postcard recently. He also said it's quite rare that they get any actual physical mail any more.
A Republican Reader Asks: Why the Tunnel Vision?
Monday, January 28th, 2008 by Mikhaela Reid
Most liberal cartoonists (and bloggers) get a lot of mail like this, so I thought I'd share this letter and my response:
Ms. Reid,Here's my response:I was shocked this week when I found that even Lloyd Dangle broke away from savaging Republicans, for a change. I was so excited that I immediately went to your latest offering to see if you might have found something, besides Republicans, to ridicule. No, nope, nyet...uh-uh. Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of stupidity and objectionable behavior in my beloved Republican party; but, have you never found something worth mining for your cartoons among the Democrats? I here the Daily Kos is looking for a house cartoonist. You would be perfect for the job!
gb
P.S. I made up the bit about the Daily Kos looking for a cartoonist, but the rest is fairly accurate!
Dear Gene,On another note, it'd be awesome if any of the big-time weblogs really did decide to start paying for cartoons. Hint, hint.Thanks for the thoughtful letter. It’s true that I spend a good majority of my cartoon energy criticizing Republicans, but I’ve got my reasons.
(1) They’re the party in power, with control—and the job of a satirist is to critique those in power. I wasn’t a cartoonist yet when Clinton was in office, but I guarantee you would have attacked him mercilessly. I’m looking forward to seeing a Democrat in the White House so I can critique him/her, believe you me. Not that I really like any of the Democratic frontrunners—but unlike the GOP slate, at least they don’t actively terrify me.
(2) Sure there are powerful Democrats who have their faults—spinelessness, ineffectiveness, poor organizational skills, lack of integrity, and so forth. I’ve done cartoons in the last year critiquing Clinton (Hillary), Pelosi, Barney Frank, Edwards, Obama and others, and I criticized John Kerry in the runup to the 2004 election.
(3) BUT I only draw one or two cartoons a week, and I’d rather go after what pisses me off the most in one given week. That tends to be things like torture, war, and anti-gay legislation, most of which generally come from the GOP.
All that said, watching Clinton and Obama sling mud at each other lately has been making me ill. So maybe you’ll see some of what you were hoping for sooner than you think.
Regards,
Mikhaela
P.S. The reader wrote back saying he appreciated my response very much, and signed his letter "a grudging fan." Nice!
