onprincipleblog.com's blog

It’s official, Team Clinton has officially committed to continuing the fight of the Democratic nomination.

It seems (and indeed, may in fact be) delusional, but the Clinton campaign’s current path to victory includes:

·         Remaining Pledged Delegates:

The immediate goal of the Clinton campaign is to keep Obama from winning too many of the Pledged Delegates available through the last two primaries this week. Of course, even if Obama wins ALL the remaining Pledged Delegates, which he won’t, he still wouldn’t posses enough Delegates to clinch the nomination. But sanity ranks the effectiveness of this first tactic in keeping the nomination from Obama on about the same plane as the boy-get’s-girl ending of every “Nerd” move produced through Hollywood.  It's fun to imagine improbabilities via a movie, but sad to witness the futility of misplaced hope in real life.

·         Remaining 200 undeclared Super Delegates:

A cursory review of news sources would probably lead one to believe that still undeclared Super Delegates are flocking, en masse, to the inevitability of Obama’s nomination. It is certainly true that Obama is inching ahead of Hillary, but it hasn’t exactly been a daily avalanche of declared support for Obama. I’ve previously noted the mere fact that these Super Delegates aren’t drawn to Obama like flies to messianic honey may be due to their secret, unrequited hope and preference for Hillary’s nomination. 

It should be noted that Obama is rumored to have accumulated an impressive reservoir of private “declarations” of support from a number of these publicly undeclared Super D’s which his campaign is holding back from public acknowledgement until the opportune moment. I believe this is true, but he doesn’t have 200 such Super D’s. 

I think it is fascinating to realize there is really no reason, at this point, for 90% of these undeclared Super D’s not to declare. If they don’t declare by Wednesday of this week (within 1 day of the final primaries), then we know the Clinton campaign may actually know something we don’t (even more “Pastor Disasters”, as is rumored?). They won’t make up the Delegate gap, but perhaps they will hold on to 25% - 50% of these undeclared Delegates.

·         Enticing Declared Super D’s to Switch Allegiance:

Vying for two above-mentioned categories of Delegates may breathe some temporary life into Clinton’s campaign, but it won’t secure her the nomination. Without further tactical advance by Team Clinton, it is overwhelmingly likely that Obama will still eke out support from sufficient remaining Delegates to secure the nomination.   This is what leads us to examine Clinton’s last, best hope to becoming the Democratic nominee.

The last key to the Clinton strategy is to convince existing Super D’s to switch allegiance.  As I wrote about here, this is, technically speaking, a completely viable option for a Super Delegate.  For the sake of convenience, media organizations like the Associated Press and CNN keep track of declarations of support from Super Delegates as a way of handicapping the nomination process. But Super D’s are NOT bound to these declarations. They don’t cast their vote of support until August. Until then, they are free to publicly vacillate in support of the candidates or even remain undeclared. Hillary’s campaign hopes are completely banked upon convincing these Super D’s to switch allegiance. 

How likely is this tactic to work? Again, as I depict here, the Super D’s are pinned to the mat of reality by a monolithic media meme in Obama’s inevitable victory. The sheer repetition of his assumed nomination creates an incredible inertia of presumed public opinion against which most elected officials just won’t fight – even if they know he is the weaker candidate for the party. Thus the reason I classify this final tactic as a delusional jousting at windmills. Yet, Hillary is wisely campaigning with just such a Super Delegate this week:

“Clinton invited Virgin Islands Super Delegate Kevin Rodriguez, a recent convert, to travel with her to South Dakota where she planned to campaign Monday. Rodriguez had initially supported Clinton, switched to Obama, and recently returned to her camp.”

Still, as Hillary inarticulately alluded last week, an awful lot can happen between now and the convention. Consider Obama’s plummeting ratings among white Democratic women and on the “trust” of voters in general. If the media meme can be broken, Super D’s may be convinced to switch. 

I think the media is now fully invested in an Obama victory over Clinton. But continuing revelations of impropriety, racism, dangerous inexperience or poor judgment – if persistent or sufficiently shocking – may create the crack in Obama’s reservoir of Super D declarations to create a new flood of support which changes the tide of this election and buoys her drowning candidacy (to truly stretch a metaphor).

I will continue to pull back the curtain to reveal the public media pieces I was tracking in March and April which led me to decisively take a stand against the near monolithic message of the pending, deep, dark and deadly national economic recession.  That’s why I title this series of posts the “Economic Contrarian”; they run contrary to the media narrative which has cemented conventional wisdom in a decidedly negative direction.

Due to the myriad of headline links included in this Post, I will only provide commentary here in the Summary.  What will follow below is a list of the headlines (with links to the original articles) I was following which demonstrated the economy’s strength via the consumer spending sector.  Retail spending is traditionally considered an excellent barometer of economic health as it is measure of both:

• <!--[if !supportLists]-->The ABILITY of consumers to spend money (which addresses jobs, income, savings, home equity, available credit, credit ratings, etc) and
• <!--[if !supportLists]-->The WILLINGNESS of them to do so (which captures the consumer’s confidence to tap credit, savings, etc verse uncertainty in the ability to repay in the future due to concerns over inflation, job security, interest rates, etc).

Thus, when retail spending is expanding across the board, it is a good measure that the economy is NOT in recession.  As you will see below, my reading of the popular media was showing that an expansion of retail spending is exactly what we were experiencing in the First Quarter of 2008.  What follows below is a summary of the types of retail spending I was following.

Past Posts on This Topic:

The Economic Contrarian

Economic Contrarian – Trade Deficit

Economic Contrarian – Personal Incomes

Economic Contrarian – Sometimes You Win

Economic Contrarian – Banking Rebound

Economic Contrarian – Industry Leaders & Profits

Summary:

Consumer Retail Spending

Consumer retail spending addresses the regular spending in which consumers engage. These purchases are generally referenced as being “necessities”.  In recessions (especially sever recessions), however, incomes become constrained due to job losses, spent savings, loss of home equity and “maxed out” credit cards.  Thus, finding steady or growing consumer spending is not a sign in an exploding economy, but it certainly nullifies the warning that a recession is skimming all robustness out of the economy.

Examples Include:

                Walmart, McDonalds, General Mills (cereals), 3M (products like Post-It Notes), Walgreens, Ebay (it must say something when we place Ebay in the “necessary/consumer” category! – Oh, how dire things are!)

Discretionary Retail Spending

Discretionary spending is an excellent measure of consumer sentiment – the willingness for consumers to part with their cash.  While consumer spending may be incorrectly labeled as being “necessary”, discretionary spending is not.  Consumers generally purchase discretionary items when they feel confident in the security of their savings and/or the continuation and sufficiency of their income.  Growth in discretionary spending is a tremendous indication that consumers feel secure in the economy (at least for themselves).  It also indicates a continued ripple of healthy economic activity as most discretionary items are carry higher price tags and involved larger supply chains (like automobiles).  When purchased, they are funding larger segments of the economy than when someone purchases box of cereal.

Examples Include:

Ford (Automobiles – purchases which could certainly be delayed a year or two), Williams-Sonoma (up-scale home goods), Aetna (health care services can be decreased through lower coverage or higher deductibles), Intel (new computer models are not exactly a requirement in a recession).

International Retailers

Another interesting element of our economy which the media seems to miss and which the Democratic party loves to hate is the International strength of American companies.  International sales infuse our economy with cash, funding salaries, driving domestic consumer spending and further strengthening our economy.

Examples Include:

Coca Cola (drinks sold in darkest, most primitive areas on Earth – and beyond), Boeing and Lockheed Martin (aerospace and high-tech sales to foreign governments), Caterpillar (construction equipment)

Entertainment Spending

Entertainment spending could be considered a sub-category of Discretionary spending.  I separate it here as this category is an even more stunning example of consumers feeling comfortable parting with their money.  Where Discretionary spending may include the purchase of cell phones (no, they aren’t “necessities”), Entertainment spending would include the upgrade to high-end cell phones and data plans.  Where Discretionary spending may include DVD players from Best Buy, Entertainment spending would include movie tickets and rental clubs like (Netflex, etc).

Examples Include:

RIM (Blackberry data service is NOT a necessity – especially as the subscriber base expands), Viacom (video games), Disney (Theme parks.

The detailed list of headlines with links to the original articles follows here:

Like many self-proclaimed conservatives I know, the grating, wily “Queen of Tusla” is actually warming the icy layers of my libertarian heart.  There are lots of things to admire in her tenacity, but the Terminator is tenacious too. 

The reason I find myself in stunned admiration is that she is actually striking the professional, principled position in terms of navigating the DNC process governing the Navigation.

I reach this conclusion through my intercept of a dialogue between a representatives of Hillary’s campaign (a “Hillarite”) and a concerned Super Delegate (“Super D”).

Super D:       Cut the BS, why is Hillary still in this race?

Hillarite:      No one has won enough Delegate votes to win the nomination and she’s kicking Obama’s backside by unprecedented margins.  Who quits a race when they are winning states by 35% and 41%?  More importantly, Hillary is FAR more electable in November.

Super D:       But cut the BS.  You know Hillary CAN’T win

Hillarite:      Why not?

Super D:       She’s 200 Delegates down and there aren’t enough Pledged Delegates left to win.  Obama only needs a handful more.

Hillarite:      Not true.  Obama only needs a handful more until Michigan and Florida are seated, because the current counts of what constitutes the “majority” of Delegates doesn’t include these two states.   That issue is getting addressed this weekend, so we’ll all know what is happening soon enough.  But everyone expects MI and FL to have some of their Delegates seated at the Dem National Convention.  When that happens Obama will actually need more Delegates than what he’s likely to win in the 3 remaining contests.  Thus, when all the popular voting is completed, neither of us will have won enough Delegates.

On Michigan and Florida:

Super D:       Cut the BS.  All this pushing on MI and FL is a bit unseemly.  You agreed that those states shouldn’t be counted.  You agreed not to campaign in them.

Hillarite:      Yes, we did agree.  Yes, we did obey the rules and did not campaign in either state.  But, we also stated publically that neither state should be cut out of our process.  They both held legal votes.  In fact, all names were on the ballot in FL and the FL Secretary of State has officially confirmed the popular vote there.  Are you saying a fair, legal election shouldn’t be counted?

Super D:       Well, ok.  Maybe FL.  But Obama wasn’t even on the ballot in MI.  He obeyed the rules.  Hillary did not.

Hillarite:      Wrong.  No DNC rule required candidates to remove their names from the ballot.  Obama jumped the gun and limited his options by removing his name.  Hillary showed more political judgment by leaving her options open.  No one has filed an accusation that she broke ANY rules.  In fact, watching how the two campaigns handled this issue provides another excellent insight as to why Obama won’t make a good national leader.

On Obama as Frontrunner:

Super D:       OK, I’ll grant you MI and FL, but we Super D’s HAVE to vote for him.

Hillarite:      Why?

Super D:       Cut the BS.  Obama has won more states.

Hillarite:      Number of states won is not a criterion for success under ANY measurement system.  North Dakota is just not that important. 

Super D:       Cut the BS.  Obama has won more popular votes.  The voice of the voters must be heard.

Hillarite:      No he hasn’t.  Hillary has won the popular vote if MI and FL are added.  As we already discussed, there is really no argument that FL shouldn’t be added and it isn’t Hillary’s fault that Obama mistakenly removed his name from the MI ballot.  Besides, forecasts of the remaining contests show that Hillary will further increase her popular vote lead.  It is very, very likely that Obama will NOT have won the majority of the popular vote when everything’s done.

Super D:       Ok, but cut the BS.  Delegates are what matter and Obama is WAY ahead in Delegates.

Hillarite:      Yes, Obama is ahead in Pledged Delegate count, but we don’t know that he will be ahead once Super Delegates cast their votes in August.

On the Popular Will:

Super D:       Cut the BS.  Super D’s are mostly elected officials.  They have to vote according to the will of their constituents.

Hillarite:      Wrong on 2 counts.  First, if this were true, why are Senators Kennedy and Kerry supporting Obama?  Hillary soundly won Massachusetts.  If what you are saying is true they MUST support me.  Second, if what you state was true, why would we even have a Super Delegate system?  The ENTIRE purpose of having Super Delegates is to allow consideration beyond the foundational proportional distribution of Pledged Delegates.

Super D:       Ok.  I’ll grant you this in concept.  But come on.  Cut the BS.  Super Delegates must follow the popular will.

Hillarite:      What popular will?  Hillary has won, is winning and will win the popular vote!  The only “popular will” Obama is winning is the will of the Media.  Are you suggesting the Media should select our candidate?  Not the voters?  And not other considerations?

Super D:       There you go again, mentioning “other considerations”.  What “other considerations” would justify overturning a major lead in Delegates?

Hillarite:      What “major lead”.  If you remove the Super Delegates, wait for the MI and FL decision and forecast the final 3 primaries – then Obama is still ahead in Pledged Delegates, but not by more than 2 or 3%.  At that point, Hillary may be ahead by 2 or 3% in the popular vote.

Super D:       Cut the BS.  You know Super D’s have already stated their support for Obama.  So you can’t just separate them when you look at Obama’s Delegate total.

Hillarite:      There are several more months until the Convention.  No Super Delegate votes until then.  Until the Convention, they are free to change their mind.  After all, there are several Super D’s who changed their stated support from me to Obama.  Why isn’t it ok for Super D’s to switch their votes from Obama to me?

On “Other Considerations”:

Super D:       Ok, but you haven’t answered, what “other considerations” would justify such a switch.

Hillarite:      I’ll tell you, but first, please remember, there isn’t some MAJOR justification needed for a Super D to support someone who is winning the popular vote.  Now, that being said, this cycle is compressed to an unprecedented degree.  We’ve never seen this before and will be studying it when all is done to learn from mistakes made.  Voters may already be doing this.  Consider, since March 4^th, Hillary has massively won the popular vote and in Pledged Delegates.  So, the longer voters have to think, study and assess their options, the more they vote for Hillary.  We even saw this in early primary states.  Late deciders nearly always broke for Hillary by a huge percentage.

Super D:       Is that all?  Hillary’s done a better job of campaigning, finally, so she’s performing better.  That’s your argument?  Vote for Hillary because she finally fixed her campaign?

Hillarite:      No, there’s much more.  Hillary is winning all the states Democrats must win in November.  She is polling ahead of McCain while Obama polls behind or even with him.  And she has the larger, more stable coalition of supporters.  Obama’s is very narrow in terms of the general election.  If it wasn’t for Hillary’s admitted mistake not to contest the primaries in a few small states (most of which McCain is guaranteed to win anyway), she would be even or ahead in Pledged Delegates as well.

Super D:       Interesting.  But cut the BS.  Super D’s can’t go against the will of the people. . .

Hillarite:      Have you listened to anything here?  The ENTIRE purpose of Super D’s is to make decisions on the larger parameters of what will help the Dem Party win in the General Election.  The ENTIRE purpose.  Hillary is the best candidate on all of these parameters.  Obama’s Delegate lead only seems large because of Super D’s which could change their votes.  Hillary is ahead in popular votes by about the same margin as Obama is ahead in Pledged Delegates – Delegates from states which won’t decide the election.

Super D:       Interesting argument, but cut the BS.  Obama is black. This is historic.  We Super D’s can’t deny such a historic moment.

Hillarite:      So, the first female President isn’t historic?  Being “Black” is more important than being “Female”?

Super D:       Well, the media would crush us if we Super D’s reversed the popular will and voted for Hillary.

Hillarite:      WHAT POPULAR WILL??????  Hillary will win the popular vote.  Arghhh!  Cut the BS. As an elected official, you are going to “lead” according to the media’s vote.  Doesn't that make the media unelected  "Supder Delegates" of the Dem Party?

Thus, the feckless Dem’s will nominate Obama because the media won’t “let” them do otherwise. Mainstream Corporate Media - the real Supder Delegates. . . Welcome to the Democrat's version of  democracy.

On Principle,

CBass

As also found here.