The headline suggests Cruz is going to dominate, while Bernie has no hope at all. What do the numbers really say?
I got no beef with pie fights. I generally avoid em because I’m on a diet. Meta ain’t much betta. But sometimes you gotta put on the hip boots and wade in ...
I’ve read Markos’ edict — twice. Not because I think his words are so much weightier than anyone else’s, but because so many more words have been generated in response. I want to make sure I am clear on what he wrote because this is one of those rare times when he pulls rank and asserts a policy governing conduct on t/his site.
To begin, I draw your attention to the image at the top of the post. According to the Washington Post, Ted Cruz BOOSTED HIS CAMPAIGN WITH DOUBLE VICTORIES. In contrast, sanders made little headway.
Never mind the fact that Bernie had double victories as well.
Never mind the fact that Bernie is a lot closer to Hillary than Cruz is to Trump.
Never mind the fact the margin of Bernie’s victories were stunning. Hillary didn’t reach viability in some of the Kansas caucuses. That’s not just losing. That’s losing like Martin O’Malley. That’s getting crushed.
However, if you look at Nate’s numbers, it is clear that Bernie is a meager 85% of the way to where he should be at this point in the campaign cycle, while Cruz is a robust 67% of the way home!!!! I doubt anyone who supports a data-driven, reality-based approach to analysis would support the editorial choices the Washington Post is making. Unfortunately, Markos’ edict risks increasing the chances of making that mistake. Fortunately, we can avoid that mistake.
For the most part, I have no problem with what he is laying out as guidelines. However, there are three issues that trouble me — and coincidentally seem to be at the root of much of the debate his edict has generated.
1) “No re-litigating the primary”
First — that is a sloppy ass way of using the word “litigate” in a sentence. Litigation means you are arguing a case before the law. When you litigate, you are pursuing legal remedies. Re-litigating means you are trying to go back and pursue legal remedies after having lost the previous case. Litigating is NOT a synonym for “arguing.” Making that confusion is a classic right-wing trope. As in “we are not going to re-litigate the case for invading Iraq.”
Second — If you want to say “we aren’t going to revisit arguments made during the primary” that’s fine. I may not agree with that, but I don’t get a royalty check for writing here, so who cares what I think. All I ask is we use English properly. It’s a lot less confusing when we do that.
2) “I don’t give a shit what Clinton or Sanders said in the primary anymore.”
First — We’ll overlook the salty talk. Never mind it violates a previous policy against such language. You make the rules, you get to change the rules. Fuck it.
Second — That ahistorical position is going to come back to bite you in the ass. One need look no further than the bizarre doublethink that infects right-wing thinking to see what happens when “history doesn’t matter” takes hold.
Third — I definitely care what someone said when they are saying it in public as part of a campaign to make future policy. President Obama was very clear that he was “a proponent of the single payer healthcare plan.” I trust no one will insult me by pretending he is not on video saying that, or forcing me to provide evidence. His backtracking on that — some call it compromise. Public option? THAT is what a compromise looks like. No to single payer and no to public option? That’s not a compromise. That’s a problem. A lot of the (misguided) grassroots resistance that fueled the growth of the “TEA party” wing of the GOP is rooted in the legitimate complaint that the government is FORCING people into plans that favor health insurance companies. The consequences of breaking that promise have been undeniable.
Fourth — what makes the primaries sacrosanct? If you don’t give a shit (pardon my language, I am just trying to accurately represent what was written) what your candidate said in the primary, what makes the general election any different? If anything, you should care less about what they say in the general because now they are not just talking to the base and — run to the center to govern from the left(right). That cynical attitude is one of the major corrosive elements in modern American politics. People thought Reagan wasn’t serious about what he said. “He’s just saying that to rile up the base. He’ll change his tune when he gets into office. You wait and see.” Yeah PATCO, (the only union to endorse Reagan) how’d that work out for you?
3) “But once this primary is over, it’s over. Anyone who is interested in keeping our primary divisions open and festering can go do that somewhere else.”
First — as stated before, Markos wants to set policy on t/his site. Fine. But there are some serious unintended and completely predictable consequences to that policy point. Everyone has noticed that Hillary has been adopting more and more of Bernie’s rhetoric and positions. Sometimes outright parroting them. Marry point 3) to point 2) and you have created a loophole that enables this argument:
“But during the primaries Hillary adopted the same position that Sanders had staked out so she could cut into his support. Now she is flip-flopping on it to cut into Trump’s support.”
“I don’t give a shit what she said during the primaries.”
“But that issue is important to me.”
“Too bad. So sad. You called her a flip-flopper. Hit the bricks.”
Bottom Line: (TL;DR)
As I said before, I agree with the vast majority of Markos’ points. If the goal is to manage the site so it is a useful resource for organizing and mobilizing voters so we can keep the White House, win back the Senate, and begin to move the House, then I think it is counterproductive to create a dynamic that will alienate the very people you need to achieve your goal.
The fact is that March 15 is not a magic date. As everyone knows, Obama didn’t overtake Hillary until June. Had this rule been in effect in 2008, Markos would still be cleaning the egg off his face. That should be reason enough to rethink this part of the edict.
I am a firm believer that you never walk into someone’s office with a problem unless you carry a proposed solution in the other hand. In that spirit, here’s my suggested fix:
1) The only issues worth revisiting from the primary battles are policy issues where the nominee has taken a clear position. If you had a pet issue championed by your candidate and they lost, that doesn’t mean anyone else needs to care about it unless the nominee embraced that position during the primary and is now abandoning it. Then we have an obligation to keep their feet to the fire. The decision of whether your pet issue trumps the prospect of losing Supreme Court nominations is yours to make. Try to make it wisely.
2) Personal attacks are out of line. It doesn’t matter whether you are mocking the nominee’s allergy for combs, or your debate partner’s predilection for using their ass as a hat. That’s not productive and you sound like a Republican presidential candidate trying to score points at a debate. It’s embarrassing. Expect to be mocked.
3) It ain’t over ‘til it’s over. I think we can all agree that Nate Silver (our very own poblano — my how quickly they grow up) is as close to a gold standard/statistical wizard as we are going to get. So let’s agree to use his delegate target tracker to settle any disputes on whether or not it’s over. Yes, Bernie is about 85% of the way to where he needs to be at this point. But I remind you that when the last poll in Iowa had him down 10 points, he made that a virtual tie. More recently, he was down in Kansas, but wound up crushing Clinton 2:1 in Kansas. In other words, the models are not working this cycle quite as well as they have in the past. So let’s hold off counting our chickens, lest they come home to roost.
Now let’s have a good, clean fight. Protect yourself at all times, don't hit below the belt, break cleanly from the clinches. In the event of a knockdown, go directly to a neutral corner. Above all, follow the rules! Okay, touch gloves and come out fighting.
