Balkinization: The electoral college virus (continued)

The electoral college virus (continued)

Sandy Levinson

I note a post of mine from a couple of weeks ago, on how the "electoral college virus" is worming its way into the Democratic primary process. Well, wouldn't you know: Evan Bayh, according to today's New York Times, told CNN that “[W]ho carried the states with the most Electoral College votes is an important factor to consider because ultimately, that’s how we choose the president of the United States." The Times helpfully ends its story with the following: [In 2000] Mrs. Clinton, who had just been elected to the Senate, said,“I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it’s time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president.” I guess she has changed her mind on this.

Even if one doesn't loathe the electoral college, as I do (and Clinton used to),

one might note that the most important fallacy of the Clinton argument is that they are not in the least differentiating among states a) that any Democrat will carry; b) that Clinton but not Obama will carry; c) that Obama and not Clinton will carry; and d) that no Democrat can win. One would place California and New York clearly in category one, Texas and Wyoming just as clearly in category d (at least in 2008). So the only interesting categories are b) and c). It's conceivable that only Clinton can carry Ohio, given her appeal to older white men who really can't imagine, when all is said, voting for a non-white (what we might call the "Rendell Democratics," given the Pennsylvania Governor's expression of doubt that a non-white can be elected). But I think it's equally conceivable that only Obama could carry Virginia (a near-certainty) and several of the mid-Western states, including Iowa. And if John Edwards will ever stop sulking, and if those unions who have endorsed Obama, including the Teamsters, rally their supporters and members and point to McCain's total lack of doubt about NAFTA, I don't see that Ohio is out of play.

This is, alas, just one more example of wholly meretricious argument by supporters of Hillary's candidacy. But, hey, any port in a storm....

UPDATE: I note that Gov. Rendell has subsequently said the following: “And interestingly, I think Senator Obama, if he’s the candidate, will run okay in some of those counties. There’s no question. Hillary Clinton is a better fit for those counties. Is a better fit for southwest Pennsylvania. But I think either one of them is going to carry the state in the fall.” So I defer to the Governor, who supports Clinton (and is an Chair of the national Democratic Party) as to whether Pennsylvania falls into category b). It doesn't. I don't know if Ohio Gov. Tim Strickland, also a Clinton supporter, has said anything relevant as to whether he thinks that Obama would lose Ohio. Perhaps Obama will decide that Strickland (instead of Virginia Sen. James Webb) would make a fine VP and thus make the Ohio argument moot.

Posted 5:54 PM by Sandy Levinson [link]

Comments:

These arguments by the Clinton supporters/surrogates are painfully dumb, but they aren't meant to stand up to scrutiny. Clinton's demographic is low-info voters and voters desperate to have a female president (and/or voters who have some ingrained aversion to Obama). The former will not think too hard about this, the latter only need token encouragement to keep soldiering on.

# posted by

Unknown : 7:22 PM

Yeah, this argument doesn't have much force, unless it's just a counterargument to Obama citing deceptive figures like his having won 70% (or whatever the exact number is) of the states. Then I think it's reasonable to point out that he hasn't won any big states, and, therefore, only about 54% of pledged delegates. I have to say, I'm a little more pessimistic than you are (actually, optimistic, I'm a Republican) on his chances in Virginia. I expect Wright to be a very live issue in the general election. It may seem somewhat settled now, but what people forget is that there are a great many Americans who still don't even know who Wright is, people who don't watch cable news or follow the campaign. They will find out, however, when some 527 inevitably airs commercials quoting from Wright's sermons, and then Obama will have to answer the Wright questions all over again. I think that would tend to hurt him with southern whites.

# posted by

Asher : 7:23 PM

I'm sorry.

Having many years of fraud investigation, when a suspect starts changing their story, the ground rules, and their excuses when confronted with objective corrections to their story, the likelihood that they are lying rises exponentially.

It also reminds me of a Robin Williams schtick about Moammar Khaddafi and the "Line of Death" during the Reagan years.

"You cross the line, and you die!"
"OK, you cross this line, and you die!"
"OK, now you cross this line, and you die!"
"OK, I'm going home and taking my toys!"

# posted by

Fraud Guy : 10:11 PM

Of course, the Wright issue might be ignored, like McCain's support of right wing religious bigots, including one he called a spirtual mentor.

Or, as someone who seems overall sensible suggested, hey it's just like Farrakahan and Obama when McCain actively goes out of his way to gain support though Obama did not do the same with Farrakahan.

Republicans should like double standards like that. OTOH, Dems might remember that Bush had a lot of baggage, but still managed to get pretty far. It helps when you aren't afraid and are sure of yourself. A bit of audacity helps.

Clintonites seem to want to take the Kerry or Gore approach of barely winning the election, basically getting the blue states and a bit more. Such states in the general are likely to vote for Obama too, while a few key swing states might very well lean toward Obama in a few cases more than O.

Esp. when they recall Clinton didn't think they mattered a few months back. We do have short memories, but Clintonites have been a bit too offensive on that level for total amnesia. Besides, the media doesn't like her, so they will remind voters too.

# posted by

Joe : 12:10 AM

As to the fact neither Gore or Kerry actually won, let's put aside how you define that, well, that's sorta my point.

# posted by

Joe : 12:12 AM

"... Clinton's demographic is low-info voters ..."

Is it.

Look, a lot of us know that Brand Obama is being marketed largely on snob appeal. (I-pods, Audis, and Barack!) But it's disappointing to see the hype echoed here.

# posted by

Unknown : 8:56 PM

pdx:

I don't mind if you don't agree with me, though I can't say you've yet provided any good reason why. I don't have time to dredge up the polls that would show how Clinton's most reliable demographics include the less educated. I invite you to investigate, and to come back and tell me that low-education does not equate to low-information--you might even win the day on that.

But don't you think it's a bit odd to decry generalizations while making your own?

# posted by

Unknown : 11:14 PM