CSotD: On (from) Wisconsin
Skip to comments
The current election may go down in history as an anomaly to be quoted forevermore, as in "except for 2016."
The other possibility is that it may end up as "beginning in 2016."
Either way, for all the curve balls thus far, Jeff Danziger didn't need a crystal ball to make this prediction, though, rather than wondering why money didn't work, Trump's response accuses the Cruz campaign of illegally using it.
Reaction from the Clinton campaign seems close to Danziger's predicted take:
So this morning, Bernie’s campaign manager claimed the convention could be an “open convention,” and declared they’re going to try and flip delegates’ votes, overturning the will of the voters.
Your vote is your voice, and the Sanders campaign shouldn’t be trying to circumvent the process – or the nearly 9 million (and counting) people who have made their voice heard for Hillary in this election.
Which is pretty close to "Accept the Inevitable," or, if you like, "Resistance is Futile."
It's standard operating procedure that, at an open convention, you try to woo delegates after the first ballot, and nobody who has ever been to a convention could be outraged at that.
Perhaps Campaign Manager Robbie Mook is feeling sorry for young voters who are too stupid or lazy to research the facts, but not so sorry for them that he won't play upon their pitiful ignorance for advantage.
Or does he truly believe it would overturn the will of voters if the Superdelegates from states where the voters have expressed a preference for Sanders were persuaded to reflect that rather than to follow the orders of the DNC establishment?
I'm aware of the astonishing supermajority Sanders would need to shake the party's predetermined outcome, and, judging by these NBC headlines, I'm not alone.
In fact, my issue with those heds is that, while I don't see a problem with conceded that the fix is in on one side, I'm a little dubious that Cruz has started his surge early enough in the process to loosen Trump's grip on the other.
I'm also a little uncomfortable accepting the analysis of someone who writes "By 1:15 a.m. ET, NBC News said Sanders had won 46 delegates to Clinton's 36 in in Wisconsin on Tuesday. In addition, Clinton had already secured seven super-delegates there — making the state's overall count much closer."
What difference does he think Superdelegates — apportioned by states, but chosen by the DNC — make in "the state's overall count"? Hasn't anyone told him that conventions choose their nominee by total delegate vote, not by state? The state's overall count is, overall, irrelevant.
Maybe I should just stick to the sports page, where the writers know how the games are played.
For instance, everyone pretty much accepted that UConn would beat Syracuse last night, but at least they waited to declare the outcome until the game ended.
And the NCAA isn't like the DNC: The Huskies were required to score all their points themselves.
Meanwhile, Gary Varvel comments on how the choice is looking for Republican voters.
I have a neighbor whose car is festooned with virulent anti-Obama, anti-United Nations, anti-poor-people stickers and whose yard, every election cycle, fills with signs saluting the most rightwing fringe candidates available.
He's currently got a Kasich sign up, which reminds me of the punchline to a very old joke: "I may be crazy, but I'm not stupid."
Party divisions aside, I was pondering the "none of the above" option the other day, not because I'm considering it but because the topic comes up so often on-line in the other race, with fringers declaring that, if either Bernie or Hillary gets the nomination, they won't vote at all, or they will vote for some third-party no-chancer.
First of all — and this applies to both parties — the election in November is less for the White House than it is for the Supreme Court, and anyone whose knickers are knotted over the actual presidential candidates should still consider the Scalia seat as well as the likelihood that at least one other justice will step down before the 2020 elections.
But these people — and I hope they are a loud minority and not numerically significant — are more intent on "sending a message."
Well, the message of not voting is "I'm only one of millions who can't be bothered."
That's not the message they claim to be sending.
And I'm not sure there is a viable distinction between voting for the Tinfoil Party or, if it were an option, ticking off the box for "None of the Above," because neither distinguishes among caring-but-disgusted voters, one-issue voters who can't ever be satisfied anyway, and the sort of prideful, antisocial nutcases who think being contrarian and being intelligent are somehow connected.
A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote against the greater evil, and it's better to be crazy-but-not-stupid than to be both.
On a related note, this gratuitious plug
Ann Telnaes notes that Ted Cruz passed on the traditional photo op at the traditional Wisconsin photo op location.
It's a dilemma, trying to look presidential and yet like one of the gang.
Showing solidarity with our military by taking a ride in an armored car probably sounded like a good idea, though, and we saw how that turned out.
Even a practical hat can turn against you, much less one that is funny.
I would note, however, that it is important to differentiate between a cartoonist's political views and her own fashion sense, and that, should Ms. Telnaes wish to make a fashion statement, either to distance herself from Ted Cruz, or to align herself with Joe Biden, she will be in the vicinity of the Mars Cheese Castle in September.
However, guests of the Kenosha Festival of Cartooning make their fashion statements at a different local enterprise.
And, while we wait for that, here's to upcoming-Kenosha-guest Ann for being nominated for a Silver Reuben, along with Kenosha alums Terri Libensen and Mark Tatulli.
Here's the complete list of nominees.
(and here's where that happens)
Comments 1
Comments are closed.