Jim Geraghty is relieved that John McCain lost:
Mac is back — back to his moral preening about how bipartisan he is, back to his reflexive demonization of his own party, back to his refusal to recognize any legitimate concerns raised by those who disagree with him. If we’re going to have Democratic agenda enacted, better it be by a Democrat than a Republican obsessed with avoiding the “partisan” label in the White House.
So am I — he deserved to. That doesn’t mean that Obama deserved to win, though. The right man lost, but that doesn’t mean that the right man won. I just wish that McCain hadn’t been the nominee. The Republican Party needs to figure out how to prevent such a debacle again, by at least closing its primaries.
[Update a few minutes later]
Iowahawk has updated the Idiossey:
“Who dares challenge me now?” asked Obamacles. “For I am Obamacles, vanquisher of Hildusa, of whom all of Demos sing;
Make him the mightiest, so that I might find him worthy.”“Your foe will be the grizzled warrior Crustius,” said the Doritos,
As Obamacles laughed in disbelief; for though brave Crustius had once proved great valor in the tragic war of Namos,
He had grown old and addled sailing the Sea of Maverikus.
In years a full score he sailed, seeking the fabled Microphone of Media,
Only to crash on its shoals, lured to doom by the flattery of the Sirens.“Be not hasty in thy hubris, Obamacles,” warned the Doritos.
“Although he is old and stranded and beset by mutineers, grizzled Crustius is far craftier than in your imaginings.”True to the prophesy of the Doritos, wily Crustius had a secret trick up his toga.
From his rock-strewn shipwreck he summoned Palina, huntress of Wasilla,
Whose fertile loins had many odd-named children bore,
Bristol and Trig, Dakota and Algebra, Calculus and Physed,
And yet she retained the visage and figure of a goddess.Palina emerged from the sea, springing fully formed from a clamshell,
Brandishing the spear that had slain a thousand antlered beasts.
Once mutinous, the Crustonauts were instantly heartened,
For now they sensed a chance at victory.
Sadly, the tale has a tragic ending.
The parties don’t control who gets to vote in the primaries, the states do. That was one reason why the Dems created the superdelegates in the first place — but then it became unthinkable for the superdelgates to vote contrary to the primary/caucus outcomes, which sort of made them irrlevant.
This was a weird election in a lot of ways. And frankly the first-past-the-post voting system is the worst of all possible voting systems. But electing a centrist isn’t necessarily a “bug” in the system. Closing the Republican primaries would ensure a more conservative candidate, but it would be better (for the country) if both Primaries were open rather than closed; if the Dems fixed their Primaries to allow for participation the way the Republicans did. Obama would never have won in that instance.
Of course, open Republican primaries would mean that Fred would never have a chance in the current political environment. But that’s because too many people don’t believe in the original liberalism, Federalism or limited government. The only way to change that is to change the minds of the people; tweaking the voting system won’t get you there.
Rand, Do you want to limit how often someone can switch party ID? If not, I don’t understand how closed primaries aren’t just one more hoop that a sufficiently motivated independent can jump through for each election. And third parties can assist with that motivation: get out the vote efforts can be transformed into party registration drives.
Brock, what did you mean when you say “if the Dems fixed their Primaries to allow for participation the way the Republicans did.” This site – http://www.fairvote.org/?page=1801 – lists which primaries are open or closed for each state, and it lists cases where the republicans have a closed election while the democrats have an open election, but there are no cases where the reverse is true. But I’m guessing you meant something else.
Rand, Do you want to limit how often someone can switch party ID?
Actually, yes, I would like to see limits on that. I don’t think that anyone should be allowed to vote in more than one primary per political season.
I don’t understand. Wouldn’t you have to limit party switching to once per every two primaries to get any effect? (Any effect other than creating annoying but surmountable roadblocks).
You could simply not allow party switching in an election year. Not that I’m actually proposing a policy to implement this. I’m just expressing a preference that people not vote in multiple primaries.
Oh, you must be thinking of states where the two parties have primaries on different days. And people can vote in both? If so, that’s funny! But that’s not the case for most states already – in most states you have to choose which primary to vote in.
Or maybe you’re saying that by limiting switching to before election years, people couldn’t pick a party ID based on the particular candidates running and thus couldn’t game the system by switching party registration when it looked like they could support a moderate or a weak candidate. But consider: we are almost certain that Obama will be the candidate in 2012, so if I, as a Democrat, want to game the system by voting in a closed Republican primaries, I should register as a Republican now (presuming I didn’t care about local elections), or more practically, right after the 2010 elections.
Maybe next time the GOP will nominate somebody that the GOP majority actually supports.
Alan, you madcap!
Eh, I think there’s some wishful thinking going on. Anyone other than McCain would probably have lost even worse. The plain fact is, ol’ gas and gauzy promises is exactly who the country wanted. The system worked just fine. Obama well represents what the country presently wants.
As Mencken said, the presumption of democracy is that the people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. And so they will.
One might fantasize about a way to “fix” this result, but I’m not sure, in the long run, that this is a good idea. The most recent crop of youngsters, who have never lived through the evil malaise of a top-heavy collectivist-oriented moralizing government, have to get their fingers thoroughly burned before they learn to stay away from that pretty glittery red-hot stove. Best they learn that lesson as fast as possible.
Unless this is a generation of Homer Simpsons.
Since the 24th amendment (poll tax) does not apply, the parties could insist on a minimal ($5-$20) donation to be allowed to vote. This would help keep the wino’s and ACORN types from mucking up the primaries.
Parties should pay for whatever method that they use to select their candidates.
It would help the cause of representative democracy if Republicans abandoned caucuses. (It would help if Democrats did, too.)
Perhaps moving to an approval balloting system (“Put a check by the the name of each candidate you find acceptable”) would avoid some of the problems of the first-past-the-finish, winner-take-all system.