To B. I ask: Why should we consider primaries to be any more democratic than caucuses? I think it should be obvious from what I have said that I am not a supporter of Obama, but I do not see caucuses, if done well to be less democratic than primaries. As they stand both systems are highly anti-democratic and I can't see much preference in choosing between them.
The Democratic Part is not my party, any more than the Republican Party is. They are both parties of the owners of our society and that certainly excludes me. So I am not sure why I (or you) should be concerned too much about how the ruling class candidate is picked. But as long as you engage the issue of how the Dems select their candidate I think, the situation is as follows:
When the Democratic Party relied less on primaries, and more on back-room politics and caucuses, the Dems picked presidential candidates that were more liberal than the ones we get now. In the Southern states, of course , the local and state candidates were more racist. But in the Upper Midwestern States and the Northeast the candidates tended to have a tinge of the social democratic about them.
As far as I can see primaries have made the Democratic Party _less of a Party_ and a party with less of a liberal program. The Dems since 1976 have become more of a party of personality and of Madison Avenue advertisements. I think both are a result of the marketing nature of the primary process. Less politics and more personality; less politics and more Mad Ave is what you get in the primary states. The caucus states actually have a tendency toward more actual organizing of people than the primary states.
I think it would be a relief to us all if both the Dems and Republicans would just give up the pretense of democracy and abolish the primaries all together. It would certainly end the suffering of this constant round of campaigning for president that they put us through.
Jerry
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>Why in god's name should she withdraw? Because she's old
and charmless?
Being charmless should certainly disqualify you from any political job. In that case Obama wins.
My suggestion is that both Obama and Clinton both withdraw from the race immediately. It would also be best if McCain had a crisis of conscience and also withdrew. So let's start a campaign to get all three candidates to withdraw from the contest.
I don't quite understand why anyone on this list should care what pundit calls for which ruling class candidate to withdraw from the phony election process. One would think that there were a bunch of Clinton supporters on this list.
As far as being old I don't think it is a disqualification. Clinton is not old enough for me. I think that some combination of gerintocracy and its opposite would be perfectly fine. Only people over 85 and under 25 should qualify for the few necessary _elected_ offices. And only mothers with children should be allowed to vote. It would, of course, be best to fill most political positions by lottery, as Doug jokingly suggested in one thread. But I see no reason why not....
Jerry
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 6, 2008, at 3:11 PM, Michael Pollak wrote:
>
> > Because she's behind in the delegate count and probably can't
> > overcome it.
>
> More from The Note:
>
> > The supers stay put (at least for now). Bloomberg News' Kristin
> > Jensen and Julianna Goldman: "A group of uncommitted
> > 'superdelegates' were ready to make a show of support for Obama by
> > trying to pressure Clinton to give up, said Tim Roemer, a former
> > congressman who's rounding up backers for Obama. Now, after her
> > wins in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island, many will still back Obama
> > without calling on Clinton to quit, he said."
> >
> > Stubborn old math -- and frustratingly egalitarian rules -- reside
> > at the heart of the current standoff. "Using the ABC political
> > unit's delegate calculator, in the unlikely event that Clinton
> > sweeps all twelve remaining contests with 55 percent of the vote,
> > she will have 1,793 delegates, and will still trail Obama, who will
> > have 1,841 delegates," ABC's Jake Tapper reports.
> >
> > "If Obama were to sweep the dozen contests with 55 percent of the
> > vote, he will end up with 1,902 delegates and Clinton will take
> > home 1,732. He, too, would fall short of the magic number 2,024."
> >
> > Is it possible to do it without the supers? Assuming no super-
> > changes, Obama "would need to win 77% of all the remaining pledged
> > delegates to hit the magic number of 2,024 to secure the
> > nomination. That is highly unlikely due to the proportional
> > delegate allocation rules in the Democratic Party," ABC political
> > director David Chalian writes. "Clinton would need to win 94% of
> > all the remaining pledged delegates to hit the magic number of 2,024."
> >
> > "The scenario leaves the Democratic Party facing a stalemate with a
> > variety of chaotic endgame scenarios - and a chance that a long,
> > bloody contest could rip the party apart while giving Republican
> > John McCain a leg up in his White House run," Geoff Earle writes in
> > the New York Post.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- Jerry Monaco's Philosophy, Politics, Culture Weblog is Shandean Postscripts to Politics, Philosophy, and Culture http://monacojerry.livejournal.com/
His fiction, poetry, weblog is Hopeful Monsters: Fiction, Poetry, Memories http://www.livejournal.com/users/jerrymonaco/
Notes, Quotes, Images - From some of my reading and browsing http://www.livejournal.com/community/jerry_quotes/