A reality based independent journal of observation & analysis, serving the Flathead Valley & Montana since 2006. © James Conner.

27 April 2016

Primary notes

Donald Trump may win the nomination, but he won’t destroy the Republican Party if he loses the election in November. Democrats should abandon that hope. Four years after the Goldwater debacle in 1964, Richard Nixon was elected president. If Trump, who may be a stronger candidate than Democrats expect, begins falling behind the Democratic nominee (probably Clinton), the GOP, which is strong in Congress and the states, will protect its down-ballot candidates, probably preserving the status quo and condemning the nation to another four years of partisan gridlock.

Hillary Clinton had a good, but not perfect, night. She lost Rhode Island, won narrowly in Connecticut, and won convincingly in Maryland, Delaware, and Pennsylvania. As in most other primary and caucus states, her percentage of the vote correlated tightly with the black proportion of a state’s population. The proportion of the population that is black has increased significantly in Delaware and Maryland in the last three decades.

Historically, this cluster of states is interesting. The Mason-Dixon Line that settled boundary disputes involving Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware also demarcated slave and free states, and thus North and South. Systemic errors in Mason’s and Dixon’s survey led to the Schiehallion experiment that was an important step in determining the density of the earth.

Pennsylvania and Maryland senate primaries, and dirty ads. Chris Van Hollen won with 53 percent of the vote; Donna Edwards received 37 percent. Anti-Van Hollen ads run by Women Vote, the superpac associated with Emily’s List, that tried to tar Van Hollen as an NRA toady, backfired. But in Pennsylvania, an attack ad — that the Washington Post deemed “sleazy” — by Women Vote may have helped Katie McGinty, who won with a plurality over Joe Sestak and John Fetterman.

After a detailed analysis, the Post’s Glenn Kesseler concludes:

This ad is a depressing example of how random statements can be twisted into sharp-edged attacks. Sestak never supported the specifics of the plan highlighted by Emily’s List; he offered just vague expressions of interest in tackling the challenges posed by systemic budget deficits.

This is indeed a serious issue, but few lawmakers will be willing to make hard choices if they fear they will be falsely attacked like this. Emily’s List is doing a disservice to American democracy when it engages in such deceptive advertising.

In fact, Obama made specific policy recommendations derived from the Bowles-Simpson report. One can only imagine the attack ad Emily’s List would have run if Obama were attempting to win a Senate nod against a woman.

Readers always should be wary when political attack ads use the word “truth” and cite fact checkers. The television stations who refused to pull this ad should be ashamed of themselves — as should Emily’s List. This is simply a sleazy way to win a campaign.

Four Pinocchios

Emily’s List needs to close Karl Rove’s playbook and release it’s embrace of Richard Nixon’s approach to politics.