Matthews on the mound, Puerto Rico at the plate: let's play beanball

Note: Just so nobody will assume I'm Spinning this issue ~ I support Barack Obama, for whom I voted in my state's primary. (Admittedly, I was For Hillary before I was Against her. :) My sinister motivation here :> is that I'm Also in favor of (a) due Process and (b) Puerto Rico :}.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The host of MSNBC's Spitball Dirtball Screwball Hardball with Chris Matthews yesterday mounted another bold attack in his ongoing 2nd Battle of San Juan. Extremely extensive transcript excerpts (tendentious emphases added; my commentary follows):

...MATTHEWS:  And then you can see it going through Puerto Rico.

When it comes time to fight for who‘s got the most elected delegates -

pledged delegates, and if you lose that, if you come short, which is likely you will come short, can you add Puerto Rican votes to your claim of a popularity—of a popular vote victory?

[Clinton Communications Director Howard] WOLFSON:  Of course.

MATTHEWS:  Even though they can‘t vote in the presidential election?

WOLFSON:  Well, they‘re participating in our...

MATTHEWS:  Right, right, right.

WOLFSON:  ... in our primary process.

MATTHEWS:  But are you willing to say that you have a right to the nomination based on Puerto Rican votes?

WOLFSON:  Yes.  Which votes are you going to exclude from the process?

MATTHEWS:  No, just—just...

WOLFSON:  I said yes.

MATTHEWS:  Just people that are not American—are not voting in the American presidential election.  That‘s all.

[Much more after the Jump. / ~ the guestblogger]

WOLFSON:  Well, the Democratic Committee has decided that Puerto Rico ought to have a voice in this process, and that‘s the right thing.

MATTHEWS:  No, it‘s just interesting.  No, no, I think it‘s interesting.  I haven‘t heard you say this before.

So, in other words, those votes, even though it‘s people who can vote in a presidential election...

[presumably meaning, "...people who CAN'T vote in..." / ~ the guestblogger]

WOLFSON:  Absolutely.

MATTHEWS:  ... will be your argument for why you should have the nomination to win the presidential election?

WOLFSON:  Well, they will be part of an argument.

MATTHEWS:  No, no, but you—is it part of your popular vote total?

WOLFSON:  Sure.

MATTHEWS:  Well, you‘re—that‘s one of the metrics?

WOLFSON:  Yes, it is.

MATTHEWS:  So, you‘re going to argue it, this case?

WOLFSON:  We‘re going to argue that the popular vote total actually has a bearing, yes.

MATTHEWS:  So, it‘s going to be all the Florida votes cast when the other candidates—nobody campaigned down there, all the Michigan votes, even though your candidate was the only name on the ballot, and all the Puerto Rican votes, even though they can‘t vote in the presidential election?

WOLFSON:  I don‘t...

MATTHEWS:  All that adds up to a popular—you guys have pretty good metrics there.

WOLFSON:  I don‘t think we should be discriminating against certain voters.

MATTHEWS:  No, no, no, I would never...

WOLFSON:  And I‘m sure you wouldn‘t.

MATTHEWS:  Don‘t play that card on me.  I‘m just asking.

MATTHEWS:  I‘m only suggesting that...

WOLFSON:  They are—Chris, they‘re participating in our primary process.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS:  I just think it‘s an—you smile because you guys are so devilish about this.  You will come up with any metric known to man.

WOLFSON:  They are—there is a primary in Puerto Rico in June. 

Should we not count it?

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS:  ... Guam.  I think it‘s great.

WOLFSON:  Because Chris Matthews said “Cancel the primary in Puerto Rico”?

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS:  Do we still have the Canal Zone?  I guess we don‘t have that one anymore.

WOLFSON:  No, we do not.

[Later / ~ the guestblogger] --

...MATTHEWS:  This argument that the votes of Puerto Rico, that‘s a huge

a huge...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS:  No, I‘m stunned.  I am absolutely stunned by the argument.  It‘s a huge commonwealth, a great part of the world.  It is definitely American citizens all over the island.  But they don‘t get to vote in our presidential elections.  And Howard Wolfson sat there with a straight face, more or less, and said, Those will be our argument for getting the nomination, that we swept Puerto Rico.

[later ] ~

...["The Politico"'s Roger] SIMON:  Since the popular vote doesn‘t matter anyway, since the popular vote is nowhere part of the...

MATTHEWS:  (INAUDIBLE) new metric, though.

(LAUGHTER)

SIMON:  ... is nowhere part of the rules—they say metrics don‘t count.  They‘re just meaningless, metrics like how many delegates actually vote for you on the floor of the convention, I guess.  Since the popular vote really doesn‘t count, you might as well count Puerto Rico.  You might as well—you know, she‘s not going to win the popular vote anyway.

["Mother Jones"'s David] CORN:  Democrats abroad.  Don‘t forget about them.

MATTHEWS:  Well, I‘m just thinking chutzpah, you know, the ability to just look somebody in the face and make a case that‘s absurd.  I mean, nobody in this country would say that the nomination should be decided by people who can‘t vote for president, would they?  Does anybody say that?

SIMON:  Isn‘t making a case absurd what politicians do when they‘re running?

(LAUGHTER)

[later] --

Phil, I have to ask you, all the way from California and San Francisco; we just had Howard Wolfson come on and say that one of the metrics the Clinton people have come up with is, if they lose the votes here in terms of elected delegates, if they lose here in terms of popular vote, they will use the popular vote from Puerto Rico to claim victory.  What do you think of that latest development in this changing of score cards? 

PHIL BRONSTEIN, “SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE”:  You know, you talk about the card, and there has been a lot of talk about using the race card, Hillary Clinton using the race card, Chris; I‘ll tell you something, if a donkey walked got in a polling station and cast a vote for Hillary Clinton, she would be playing the animal card.  She‘s going to play any card she can play at this point... 

[later] --

MATTHEWS: ...Now, they are looking to Puerto Rico.  I thought Harold Wolfson sitting here would laugh when I said that.  Even though Puerto Rico is perfectly entitled to participate in selecting the nominee, to use their popular vote as a case for the nomination, it just seems absurd.  They can‘t vote in presidential elections.  They are not part of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 

Read the whole transcript if you've a mind to. (I excerpted almost everything re Puerto Rico, plus ~ obviously ~ ample Context.)

So then, Señor Senador Matthews, let me see if I've got this straight.

(1) PR "is perfectly entitled to participate in selecting the nominee." (2) Presumably this means (if it means Anything) that it's OK for PR to have Delegates and for the delegates' votes to Count. However, (3) "nobody in this country would say that the nomination should be decided by people who can‘t vote for president...". Accordingly (4) since Puerto Rico's Delegates, like those who elected them, are rather likely to be people from Puerto Rico, and thus people who can't vote for President, it would seem that here in This country such Delegates' votes may be counted IF, but Only if, they will Not Decide the nomination: i.e., the PR Delegates representing the PR Democrats are "perfectly entitled to participate in selecting the nominee" UNLESS it so happens that it is Their votes which will Select her. / Finally, regardless of whether the delegates' Participation is Tabulated because it doesn't Matter, or Subtracted Out because it Does: (5) the Primary votes which Elected them are never to be tallied into Anybody's cumulatively-meaningless Metrics because, well, that "just seems absurd."

Come off it, my brother Thinning Hairball & Tankmate for Obama :}. If we Really want to restrict the Democratic and Republican nomination processes to entities wielding Electoral Votes ~ thus defenestrating the bipartisan Territorial-enfranchisement policy of many years' standing ~ then let us go forth and lobby Both upcoming conventions to so amend their Rules for 2012 and Beyond. / No doubt Guam and the Northern Marianas will be steamed at us but we can Take it, after all we're Regular Guys from Philly who play Stickball. Wallball. Goofball. Whatever.

But for as long as we're still Stuck in this 2008 nomination Endgame, let's leave off the extraprocedural attempts to just Jawbone & Chortle the rules to death before their Time. / And while we're at it (the Leaving Off, I mean :) let's drop the futile effort to construct some sort of a principled High Wall of Separation between the votes of our colonies' Delegates and those of the colonized People who elect them.

AND in the meantime let's try to incrementally Reduce, rather than potentially Exacerbate, the extent to which (in the lyric of West Side Story) ~

...Nobody knows in America:
Puerto Rico's in America!

Comments

The use of capitalized letters, '~'s, italics, brackets and bolded font in this post is amazing.

[David K.]

Thats ok Joe, Hillary and her crew think that my entire state is apparently not worthy of voting despite the fact that we can and WILL have a say in the general election, but Puerto Rico definitely should count for the nomination even though they won't have a say in the general election. And yet Hillary wants to base her calim of "electability" on that?? Hilarious.

[Brendan]

While I don't deny that Chris Matthews is a bombastic ass, I do think there is a certain cognitive dissonance to the Clintonistas' position on this. On the one hand, they're arguing that the superdelegates should choose Hillary because she's more "electable" and because she's won the "swing states," the "battleground states," the "big states," etc., and because she has more strength than Obama among white, working-class voters, who are crucial to the Democrats' Electoral College chances. In other words, they're making an argument that's explicitly premised on her ability to win the November election...

...which, as Matthews rightly points out, Puerto Rico has nothing to do with. And yet the Clintons are also, simultaneously arguing that the superdelegates should choose the more "electable," "swing state"-winning Senator Clinton because of her hypothetical "popular vote" victory, which will necessarily be clinched by Puerto Rico!

The idea might not be "absurd" on its face, but it's absurd in context, once you consider who's making the argument. I mean, for heaven's sake, these are the same people who derided Obama's wins in places like Idaho and Kansas as being meaningless because those are small, red states that no Democrat can win. And yet now the "pick & choose which states count" campaign is resting its hopes on a state that actually doesn't count!!

I actually think Matthews was on to something -- though he said it inartfully -- with his statement that "while Puerto Rico is perfectly entitled to participate in selecting the nominee, to use their popular vote as a case for the nomination, it just seems absurd." Your argument, Dad, is that Puerto Rico is a part of this process, for better or worse, and so any arguments that seek to de-legitimize their role are, in a word, TOOLATE! But as you know, "this process" is a delegate selection process, not a popular-vote-tallying process. There are no such thing as "rules" for tallying a "national popular vote" in these primaries, because (and I know I'm preaching to the choir here) the national popular vote is a totally illegitimate metric to use. But if you're going to use it, and particularly if you're going to use it in combination with an "electability" argument, it's perfectly reasonable to argue that only the 50 states + D.C. should count, and it's perfectly reasonable to argue that now, with relation to this election, rather than waiting until 2012 or whatever, because this is not a case of "changing the rules in the middle of the game"; this is case where THERE ARE NO RULES. Or rather, the Clinton people are making up the rules as they go along, and those rules are blatantly internally inconsistent. (It's all about electability, except when it isn't! Idaho doesn't matter, but Puerto Rico does! Vote for me because he can't win Ohio or Pennsylvania or Florida... and because I won the popular vote... even though I couldn't have won it without Puerto Rico!).

[Brendan]

David makes an excellent point, which I can't believe I didn't make myself, given that it's one of my pet issues. Yes, that's easily the best example of the Clintons' hypocrisy: they refuse to use reliable estimates of the vote totals in Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine (caucus states that did not report popular vote tallies because, well, why should they? the popular vote is meaningless and irrelevant!), yet they intend to claim a national popular-vote victory (to go with their "electability" argument) on the basis of... Puerto Rico.

Like I said, counting Puerto Rico in this manner might not be absurd in the abstract. But it is absolutely absurd in context. I wish Matthews had brought up some of these issues (particularly the four caucus states) rather than generally acting like an ass and making the anti-counting-PR position seem ridiculous.

[Brendan]

Ahem. Mild freudian slip, there. "Resting its hopes on a state that actually doesn't count!!" That should be a "territory," obviously.

[Joe Loy]

A "Commonwealth", actually :}. Or, in the native tongue of the native-born Americans there, "Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico" [literally, English: "Associated Free State of Puerto Rico"]. ;>

More presently.

[Marty West]

Viva Culebra for O!!!!!

[Joe Loy]

"...I do think there is a certain cognitive dissonance to the Clintonistas' position on this..." [etc...]

I do not give a S*** about the Clintonistas' Cognitive Dissonance. (Nor about the Lire, but nevermind about Italy now, they got no Electoral Votes. :) I am not defending the Clintonistas. I am defending los Puertoricanos. :> (Against the full-gallop Charge of Chris "Rough Rider" Matthews. :)

"The idea might not be 'absurd' on its face, but it's absurd in context, once you consider who's making the argument..."

No, because I consider that I am making the Argument. :]

"Your argument, Dad, is that Puerto Rico is a part of this process, for better or worse, and so any arguments that seek to de-legitimize their role are, in a word, TOOLATE!..." [etc...]

No, not Exactly. / And I am not using My argument "in combination with an 'electability' argument" or with any Other argument or phonybaloney "metric"; and as suggested above I do not give a Hoot (for purposes of This discussion) about the Clinton people's serial concoction of new rules which are blatantly internally inconsistent, nor about the very close question of What might be "easily the best example of the Clintons' hypocrisy" :).

My argument is this:

(1) There is only One meaningful metric. It is the Cumulative total vote of All the credentialed Delegates (no invidious Distinctions), once they have been duly Seated and have recorded their Votes on the Roll Call. [See, Presidential Electors' Meetings, quadrennial mid-Decembers :]

(2) This Cumulative Delegate Vote is tallied up from the subtotals announced by each of the individual authorized Delegations on the convention floor.

(3) Puerto Rico & the other Territories are among such authorized Delegations so voting.

(4) A Cumulative Popular Vote, in addition to being both an Absurd concept and an Incalculable quantity under the present Process, also has Nothing to do with the foregoing One Metric. / HOWEVER ~

(5) Since people insist on Imagining and Quantifying a CPV nonetheless, it makes the most sense ~ well, the least Nonsense ~ to TRY (albeit Futilely) to do so the same way that the dispositive CDV will be tallied at the Convention: by adding up (as best one can contrive to do it) the individual PVs of Each & All of the Delegate-allotted Entities which held primaries and/or caucuses to Constitute their Delegations. (To engage in competitive cherry-picking among such Entities inevitably plunges the whole ill-conceived project even Deeper into Chaos, Delusion, Rancor & all-around Foolishness. :)

(6) Since you virtually Force me to emit a tiny Peep (perish the very Thought of a robust Hoot :) about the deathrattles Endgames at HillaryLaLaLand: if you're presenting an aggregate "win" in an overall "CPV" as evidence of small-d Plebiscitary support from the collective grassroots Party membership, it's proper to Include the numbers registered by such party Members in the Territories. / However I concede that they can't sell Superdelegates on the proposition that her overwhelming PR PV proves she will win the Island's electoral votes. (Well. Perhaps they might win over one or two. I recently read of a PR-born Congressman from NYC who was asked by a House colleague if he'd kindly give him a sample of Puerto Rican Money for his Foreign Currency collection. Seriously. / Naturally, yer man complied. He gave the jackass a Dollar. / Yeah, the PR EV pitch could bag a couple Supers for Hil. :)

[Brendan]

I'm with you until #5, but I disagree with you that there is necessarily a single popular-vote tallying method that "makes the most sense ~ well, the least Nonsense." The "Chaos, Delusion, Rancor & all-around Foolishness" of which you speak is absolutely unavoidable, particularly in an environment wherein the Clintons (yes, yes, it always comes back to the Clintons, because I don't think there is a sensible or meaningful way to divorce this phony-baloney controversy from its inherent context) are arguing that the votes from Michigan and Florida -- which, I note, are NOT presently "Delegate-allotted Entities" -- should be included in the tally, while the votes from Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine should not be included (the refusal to include any estimates of said vote totals being a failure of the "as best one can contrive to do it" test).

I simply can't agree that there is some fundamental moral imperative that "Puerto Rico's votes should count" when we're talking about an vote-counting effort that is, in its conception and execution, entirely fraudulent and ridiculous. Nor can I agree that counting just the 50 states + D.C. is necessarily, obviously More Nonsense than counting all the voting entities, given the electability issue.

By the way: according to your popular-vote-counting logic, ("to TRY (albeit Futilely) to do so the same way that the dispositive CDV will be tallied at the Convention"), what do we do about the primaries and caucuses that award "half votes" to their elected delegates? Do we count their popular votes as "half votes" as well? Seems like we should.

[Brendan]

P.S. I think what this comes down to, though, is that you fundamentally think Matthews & co. are being racist (or ethnicist, or whatever), and that's why you're in high dudgeon about this, to the point that you're expounding principles for the proper counting of the popular vote (!!). Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's my suspicion. (Speaking of which, have you received your Lou Dobbs Fan Club membership card yet? They sent it to the wrong address, I had it forwarded. :)

For my part, although I acknowledge that there is certainly some terminological ignorance or sloppiness going on with regard to Puerto Rico's status, I don't see any reason to conclude that racism, or ethnicism, or anything similar is in play here. (I was going to say "nativism," but I guess that's wrong. Speaking of terminological sloppiness...) I don't think Matthews & co. necessarily have anything against Puerto Rico, per se. At least, I don't see any reason to believe that. I think their stance is perfectly understandable based on the notions that 1) they recognize the multi-layered hypocrisy of what the Clintons are doing here, and/or 2) they think that, if we're going to invent a "popular vote" tally on the fly, it would make more logical sense -- particularly in an environment where "electability" is the big issue of the day -- to limit said tally to the 50 states & D.C. And I believe this latter point is a position which, while not unassailable, is also not indefensible by any means.

Again, I concede that Matthews is being an ass (surprise, surprise) in the way that he's expressed himself about this, but his underlying point -- at least when directed at the Clinton campaign, which is, after all, who he was directing it at -- is not outrageous. It's not even wrong.

[Brendan]

P.P.S. That said, I would MUCH rather that Matthews have grilled Wolfson on two totally indefensible Clintonian "popular vote" gambits: the inclusion of Hillary's 330,000-to-zero victory in Michigan (a margin that would make Saddam Hussein proud), and the exclusion of those four states that had perfectly valid caucuses (two of which were among the states to whom Hillary pledged not to campaign in Michigan and Florida). Those are much more serious objections to Clinton's count than Puerto Rico is.

[Joe Loy]

"(yes, yes, it always comes back to the Clintons, because I don't think there is a sensible or meaningful way to divorce this phony-baloney controversy from its inherent context)"

"Babies full of rabies. Yes, yes." ~Vonnegut :> Now if we could only find a sensible & meaningful way to divorce the Clintons from each Other, this country might still Stand a chance. / J/K, of course ;} But saaay, are ya like Me? Are you looking forward to the contest for First Lady between Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain? "Think of that." :)

{The Clintons} "...are arguing that the votes from Michigan and Florida -- which, I note, are NOT presently "Delegate-allotted Entities" -- should be included in the tally,... "

They are presently Delegation-Suspended entities, subject to Rules-based review by (a) the Rules committee on May 31, (b) the Credentials committee thereafter, and (c) the Convention itself in the August endgame. / IOW their Qwiffs have not yet Popped: both states are still Dead & Alive. When their Lockbox is at length Opened and their wavefunctions Collapse under scrutiny, then we will know whether or not they cast any Popular Votes back in January. / Which again evokes the Hawking Condundrum, "Why do we Remember the Past and not the Future?" :)

"...while [the Clintonians claim] the votes from Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine should not be included (the refusal to include any estimates of said vote totals being a failure of the 'as best one can contrive to do it' test)."

Agreed. Totally.

"...what do we do about the primaries and caucuses that award 'half votes' to their elected delegates? Do we count their popular votes as 'half votes' as well? Seems like we should."

Naah. Count 'em as "three-fifths votes" and be Done with 'em. ;>

"I think what this comes down to, though, is that you fundamentally think Matthews & co. are being racist (or ethnicist, or whatever),..."

Close. / Very close. / At a minimum ~ i.e. at Best ~ I think they're being cavalier, shallow, snarky & snide. ;| Not to say, elitist. ("Elitist." :)

"...and that's why you're in high dudgeon about this,..."

This is Medium dudgeon.

"...to the point that you're expounding principles for the proper counting of the popular vote (!!)."

Hey, I spent my whole Professional career ignoring satirizing deconstructinng implementing principles for the proper counting of the popular vote. ;}

" (Speaking of which, have you received your Lou Dobbs Fan Club membership card yet? They sent it to the wrong address, I had it forwarded. :)"

NOW I'm in High dudgeon :>. Good job of Tactical distraction, there: your A.D.D. has taught you Well, young padawan :). Get me General "TR" Matthews on the horn. Me & Chris is gonna organize a Cavalry Irregulars charge that'll chase that bigfat fascist demagogue bastard clear to Oaxaca. ;>

[Jim Hu]

Thursday, CNN reported interesting twist (link is to my blog) on the Michigan Florida vote (but one that is ultimately not going to happen).