BrendanLoy.com: Homepage | Photoblog | Weatherblog | Photos | Old blog archives

About me


I'm Brendan Loy, a 26-year-old graduate of USC and Notre Dame now living and working in Knoxville, Tennessee. My wife Becky and I are brand-new parents of a beautiful baby girl, born on New Year's Eve.

I'm a big-time sports fan, a politics, media & law junkie, an astronomy buff, a weather nerd, an Apple aficionado, a Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter fanatic, and an all-around dork. My blog is best-known for its coverage of Hurricane Katrina, but I blog about anything and everything that interests me.

You can contact me at irishtrojan [at] gmail.com, or donate to my "tip jar" by clicking the link below:

June 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          
Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member

« CNN Breaking News | Main | Pennsylvania open thread #2 »

The next question

With the race now moving on to Indiana and North Carolina on May 6 -- and probably West Virginia (May 13) and Oregon and Kentucky (May 20) -- here's my question: will Clinton and/or Obama attend the Kentucky Derby? It's on May 3.

I posed this question to Becky yesterday, and she responded with an even better question: "Where would they sit?" Hmm... perhaps the "elitist" Obama would sit in the grandstand, sipping a mint julep (with Michelle wearing one of those giant hats), while Clinton would mingle with the bitter, clingy, drunken plebians on the infield! :)

And then there would be the question of which horse they would each pick. Whose favorite would do better? It would take the concept of the political "horse race" to a whole new level!

In similarly silly election-related commentary, don't miss the debate about puppies in the open thread.

On a more serious note -- well, sort of -- Josh Marshall writes, "I'm not sure I've ever heard a higher proportion of hypothetical spin on both sides in the absence of voting numbers. At the moment Tim Russert is going back and forth making each campaign's arguments based on various hypothetical vote spread." Heh.

Meanwhile, InstaPundit links to the drunkblogging Stephen Green, who notes, "If the Democrats ran a winner-take-all system like the Republicans and the Electoral College do, she’d have this thing clinched — and Obama would look like a regional candidate who can’t win much outside the South and his home state of Illinois." Well, yes, but no. If the Democrats ran a winner-take-all system, both candidates would have had vastly different strategies. Obama would have spent less time, energy and money in caucus states where he knew he could rack up big delegate margins, and focused more on the "big states." Among other things, it's entirely possible he would have won Texas (since he would have been paying zero attention to Ohio or Rhode Island under this scenario).

You can't divorce the results from the process. And anyway, the process is what it is. The Democrats don't have a winner-take-all system like the Republicans and the Electoral College do. They have a proportional system, because they decided to have a proportional system. You don't change the rules in the middle of the game -- or spin them into some alternate reality. They are what they are. And Obama's gonna win.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/38891/28395842

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The next question:

Comments

"In similarly silly election-related commentary, don't miss the debate about puppies in the open thread."

Heh. I was on a roll.

Meanwhile, the NYTIMES is leading with the weakest (read: responsible) headline ever:
Hillary Seems Poised to Win Pennsylvania

Apparently that beat out:
Perhaps Hillary Seems Poised to Win Pennsylvania at this Point in Time as Far as We Can Tell With Our Limited Capacities.


Right now.

""Where would they sit?" Hmm... perhaps the "elitist" Obama would sit in the grandstand, sipping a mint julep (with Michelle wearing one of those giant hats), while Clinton would mingle with the bitter, clingy, drunken plebians on the lawn! :)"

Love the question. Meanwhile, how drunk would that infield audience have to get before the audience started the "take off your shirt" chant?

*smacks head*

The term is "infield," not "lawn." Right. I knew that. I just changed it. :)

Except, they don't have a proportional system, because they have superdelegates, who are free to vote for whomever they like.

And then there's Michigan and (especially) Florida, about which the last word has not been spoken. Thus I'd advise caution on your apparent certainty that rules won't get changed in the middle of the game.

It's the Clintons, Brendan; do you not remember the 90s?

The Republicans don't "have" a winner-take-all system. They allow their state parties to adopt one if they wish to ~ which many have done, while various others have Not. / The national Dems, by contrast, have Banned state-party winner-take-all systems for many years.

Strictly speaking the Electoral College doesn't "have" such a system either ~ indeed the EC doesn't Constitutionally "have" a system of Popularly electing the Electors at all ~ but at present this point is much more of a Technicality than is the above real-world one re the Repub delegate-selection systems, since all but 2 of the 51 EC Entities do provide for statewide-winner-take-all Elector-slate outcomes; and the 2 (Maine & Nebraska) which Permit an Electoral Split have never actually Done one.

Yeah, I believe it was Colorado in 2004 that had the referendum to do a proportional split.

Unless they're planning on glad-handing with the drunks in the infield, I don't think Clinton/Obama are attending the Derby. The tickets are given out via a lottery system akin to the NCAA sports championships, and I think the only way one gets in is if one is "invited." Politics is not a factor at the Derby; even the governor at the time knows better to play the politico card. Besides, the Kentucky primary isn't until later in May....

The comments to this entry are closed.

Friends & family