Conservative Rich Lowry Whines: Waaaaaaaah! "We Don't Have Our 'A Team' on the Field"

A question for Rich Lowry: (0.00 / 0)

Rich, ol' boy:  And exactly who would comprise that A-team??

---

by: CleetusMaggard @ Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 16:29:55 PM UTC

Of course, George Allen thinks HE is the "A Team" (0.00 / 0)

once again proving how far into "joke" territory the Republican'ts have gone.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 17:26:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

System failure (0.00 / 0)

As we know too well here in Virginia, it's not only the Republicans who don't have an A Team at hand. Where's Virginia's line up for Democratic leaders of the next generation? Obama himself rose to the top because of deep polarization in his party, despite an exceptionally able HRC who many Dems still think would have made a better choice. Maybe it's always been like this. But for a country that prides itself on its democratic process and for the virtuous calling of public service, we are NOT attracting the best and the brightest to political life. The 24/7 media culture may be one reason for this. The corporate financing of political parties another. But reforms are urgently needed. It's not only the Republicans who are drowning in mediocre and outlandish candidates. Everyone is suffering.    

---

by: richmonder @ Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 19:05:55 PM UTC

The 2008 Dem primaries (0.00 / 0)

are a textbook example of how primaries are democratic and caucuses can be gamed.  HRC blew Obama away in the primaries, where everyone could vote.  But in the insider game that is caucuses, she lost just about every one of them.  

A lot more people voted for Hillary than voted and caucused for Obama.  But, it is what it is.  Personally, I think the DNC should have a platform that does away with caucuses for Democratic candidates and goes to an all-primary system.

---

by: NotJohnSMosby @ Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 20:36:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

FYI, according to (0.00 / 0)

this count, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were almost exactly even in the popular vote in 2008.  

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 21:06:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's counting the caucuses (4.00 / 1)

Take a look at the differences between caucus states and primary states.  118k Dems caucused  in Colorado, and Obama got 66.5% of the delegates, and Obama got 35 delegates and Clinton 20.  Then take a look at a small primary state, like Arizona.  Over 420k voted for the two.

What's messed up is, look at Texas, where there was a primary and a caucus.  Hillary won the primary by over 100k votes, 1.4 million to 1.3 million.  She gained a whopping 4 delegate advantage, 65-61.  On the caucus side, Barack had 24 THOUSAND votes to 18 THOUSAND or so for Hillary, and gained 9 delegates, 38-29.  So, in a state where 2.8 million or more voted in the primary but 40,000 insiders participated in caucuses, Hillary ends up with less delegates than Obama despite winning the primary by 100k votes and being 6 thousand behind in a caucus.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

---

by: NotJohnSMosby @ Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 23:14:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So, if Hillary's campaign had been (0.00 / 0)

less overconfident/more competent and had organized for the caucuses, as the Obama campaign did, she probably would have been the nominee.  

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 00:10:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's not just competence (0.00 / 0)

It's composition of the electorate.  Smaller turnouts bring a different audience.

---

by: notlarrysabato @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 01:04:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed (0.00 / 0)

Obama had the liberal true believers.  They came out in the caucus states, many of which are heavily Republican - Alaska, Utah, etc.  To be a Dem there, you are definitely a true believer.

The centrists and pragmatic Dems generally supported Hillary.  They came out in droves in primaries, since there simply were/are more of those types.  

I'm not criticizing Obama, he played the chessboard and won with his strategy.  But I firmly believe that if every state had a straight primary, where delegates are apportioned based on vote count, with no super delegates who can do whatever they want - another massive hole in the Dem selection process - then Hillary would have been the candidate and would be President right now.

---

by: NotJohnSMosby @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 02:19:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

GOP "A Team" Opted Out (0.00 / 0)

Let's just assume for the sake of argument that today's national Republican Party has an "A Team". Let's assume further that their "A Team" is not on the field for 2012. Who's fault is that? It's the fault of each and every member of their "A Team" who chose not to suit up for the game. No one kept them off the field. If they are really "A Team" members, maybe they chose not to play this time because they thought the odds of Obama's re-election looked too good. If you don't like that explanation, then the only other logical explanation is that every member of their "A Team" won't be ready to compete for the Presidency until 2016 at the earliest. If you don't like that explanation, then please tell me: what are the criteria for "A Team" membership exactly?  

---

by: Peter Rousselot @ Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 19:24:27 PM UTC

Maybe these clowns ARE the A Team (4.00 / 1)

Has anybody considered that? Ancillary whining about the putrid Republican field is, IMO, more like a "place holder" statement, meaning that the sensible elements in the GOP know they are in deep kimchee, and are telling themselves (and the voters), "wait, it really gets better." What scares me is that, by some nefarious means, like gerrymandering and apportioning a state's vote in the electoral college in fancy ways based on votes in each electoral district, one of the Republican clowns could actually end up beating Obama.

---

by: Teddy Goodson @ Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 22:15:56 PM UTC

Gerrymandering affects House races (0.00 / 0)

not presidential. Apportioning a state's electoral vote is more of a threat, specifically in Pennsylvania, but for now at least, this idea appears to be going nowhere.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 22:22:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gerrymandering, true, (0.00 / 0)

affects House races---- BUT, if votes are apportioned by results in electoral districts which have been gerrymandered to produce Republiocan majorities, then the gerrymandered electoral districts will indeed affect the vote in the electoral college.... or am I missing something here?

---

by: Teddy Goodson @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 14:51:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's not how it works. (0.00 / 0)

Except for Nebraska and Maine, all states allocate their electoral votes on a winner-takes-all basis for the state as a whole.  

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 15:00:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exactly what I was thinking (0.00 / 0)

maybe these candidates are the "A" Team. Heh.

People who see life as anything other than pure entertainment are missing the point. ~ George Carlin

---

by: fjfritz @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 00:28:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think you are right... (0.00 / 0)

these folks are the A Team for the extreme right wing of the republican party.  Politicans in the real A Team were declared RINOs and either run out of the party or else underground.

---

by: normanva @ Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 01:02:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]