Democracy Is Not a Spectator Sport

Democracy Is Not a Spectator Sport

Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, January 13, 2021, p. A6
On Feb. 14, 2014, Donald Trump told Fox, "When the economy crashes, when the country goes to total hell, and everything is a disaster, then you’ll have riots to go back to where we used to be, when we were great.”

By January 6, 2021, the economy had crashed, our federal government’s pandemic response was the world’s worst, and it seemed like “everything is a disaster.”

It was time for a Trump rally. He claimed “hundreds of thousands of American patriots” were there. The Park Service permit approved 30,000, and with no official count, the media settled on “thousands.”

Trump told them, “After this, we’re going to walk down — and I’ll be there with you — to the Capitol . . .because you’ll never take back our country with weakness, you have to show strength, and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing."

Minutes later, at the Capitol, we watched his followers’ “show strength” by staging one of Trump’s predicted “riots to go back to . . . when we were great.”

Some Americans are aware of our slowly crumbling columns of democracy, institutions essential to democracy’s creation and preservation. For them, Trump’s January 6 mob was no surprise. Riots are a part of the endgame in an authoritarian-wannabe’s playbook. It was only a matter of time.

Turns out representative democracy is not universally popular among Americans. The Pew Research Center found 13% thought it totally bad; others thought substitutions for elected officials with direct democracy (29%), experts (40%), strong leaders (22%), or military rule (17%) good ideas.

More voted last Nov. 3 than in any election for 120 years. That was 67% of eligible voters. One-third didn’t vote. An Ipsos survey revealed 23% were “not interested in politics.”

A democracy is fragile, and subject to President Lyndon Johnson’s observation that, “It takes a carpenter to build a barn, but any jackass can knock it down.”

We cannot know if it will be possible to rebuild our shattered democracy. What we do know is that it cannot be rebuilt just by substituting one president for another. It cannot be rebuilt by those who just “believe in” democracy or merely prefer it to alternatives.

It will require those who recognize and work to oppose attacks on the columns of democracy. A democracy requires an educated electorate, a trusted and independent mass media, a wise and nonpartisan judiciary, and efforts to increase, rather than suppress, ease of voting.

Inadequate education and library budgets are an attack on democracy. So is failure to support media with subscriptions and advertising, talk of “fake news” and “enemy of the people,” reverse Robin Hood legislation, or treating courts as a third political branch of government.

Are you willing to watch a little less television to have time for calls and emails to officials? Share more of the resources you can afford with local media and democracy-promoting candidates? Help sturdy our crumbling columns of democracy? [Image: Constitutional Convention of 1787, National Park Service]

If there are enough of us doing that, we have a prayer of rebuilding our barn, the democracy our founders hoped for. If not, we’re just waiting for the next authoritarian-wannabe, and the next January 6.

Nicholas Johnson of Iowa City is the author of Columns of Democracy (2018). Contact: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

SOURCES
"When the economy crashes, when the country goes to total hell, and everything is a disaster, then you’ll have riots to go back to where we used to be, when we were great.” “Donald Trump’s 2014 Political Predictions,” Fox News Interview, video, 6:26, Feb. 10, 2014, 2:02-2:12 https://video.foxnews.com/v/3179604851001#sp=show-clips Snopes https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-economy-crashing-quote/

"After this, we’re going to walk down — and I’ll be there with you — . . . to the Capitol . . .. Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness, you have to show strength, and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing . . .." Trump, Jan 6, 2021

"Donald Trump Speech 'Save America' Rally Transcript," Jan. 6, 2021, Segment beginning 16:25, https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-save-america-rally-transcript-january-6

Snopes: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-tell-supporters-storm/

Crowd size. “How Many Were at the MAGA Trump March & Protest in DC? Crowd Size Photos,” copy of Park Service permit (5000; modified to 30,000). Reports: “thousands” at rally “hundreds” at Capitol. https://heavy.com/news/maga-march-trump-dc-rally-crowd-photos/

NYTimes collection of stories: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/01/06/us/washington-dc-protests

Support for democracy: Richard Wike, Katie Simmons, Bruce Stokes and Janell Fetterolf, “Democracy widely supported, little backing for rule by strong leader or military,” Pew Research Center, Oct. 10, 2017, https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2017/10/16/democracy-widely-supported-little-backing-for-rule-by-strong-leader-or-military/

Percentage voting: Domenico Montanaro, “Poll: Despite Record Turnout, 80 Million Americans Didn't Vote. Here's Why,” Dec. 15, 2020, NPR, https://www.npr.org/2020/12/15/945031391/poll-despite-record-turnout-80-million-americans-didnt-vote-heres-why
Ipsos survey: "Nonvoters' reasons for not voting include: not being registered to vote (29%); not being interested in politics (23%) . . .." Ibid.

# # #

Tuesday Night Caution and Clues

November 3, 2008, 6:25 a.m.; November 4, 2008, 7:00 a.m.

VOTE!
. . . New Hampshire has

Obama Sweeps Dixville Notch, 15-6!
"[I]n northern New Hampshire . . . registered voters in Dixville Notch cast ballots in a matter of minutes just after midnight. Obama carried the town with 15 votes, while McCain took six. Obama also won the nearby town of Hart's Location, with 17 votes to McCain's 10 and write-in candidate Ron Paul's two." Mary Pat Flaherty, "New Hampshire Voters Cast First Election Day Ballots," Washington Post, November 4, 2008; 6:24 a.m. CT

How late will you have to stay up Tuesday night?

Polls can be, and sometimes have been, misleading. Until either Senator Obama or McCain goes over 270 electoral votes Tuesday night we won't know for sure who our next president will be. And no one can predict for sure how late we'll need to stay up to find out.

I share the nervousness of those pollsters who are a little apprehensive this morning about their numbers. Partly that's because I've always felt that no election's over until the votes are counted, litigated if necessary, and the Electoral College members have cast their votes. Partly that's because of past experience with youthful and first-time voters who are enthusiastic at rallies but then fail to vote. Partly it's anxiety that the so-called "Bradley Effect" may not be the thing of the past that we hope it is. And partly it's because last Saturday, during the night, I was tuning up and down the AM dial rather than just listening to the BBC World Service.

Traveling the country In the 1970s I would return to Washington warning the politicos about the commentary I was hearing on radio stations all across the country from this guy Ronald Reagan. There was nothing to balance his views. But he wasn't on the radio in the Washington, D.C., area so my warnings were largely ignored. In case you've forgotten, he later turned up in Washington as President of the United States.

The talk show hosts and callers are really scary. Forcefully presenting as "facts" about Senator Obama what they must know are lies. Hate speech, venom and slander that would subject them to enormous damages for defamation if he was not a public official/candidate/public figure. All swimming in a sea of ignorance.

One drifted off into religion and whether the Bible was literally accurate with regard to the six-day creation of the Earth. One of the more flexible callers suggested that, "while we think of a 'day' as the time it takes the sun to go around the earth" -- that's right "the sun to go around the earth" -- that a "day" for God could be the time it takes our solar system to go all around the galaxies.

Elections always remind me of a story told by one of my colleagues about the McGovern campaign. A student came rushing into his office and excitedly repeated, "McGovern's going to win! McGovern's going to win!" My colleague asked how he knew; to which the student replied, "Everybody I know is voting for McGovern."

Everybody you know may be voting for Senator Obama. But that ain't the same as "everybody." Those talk show callers and listeners are going to be voting on Tuesday, too. And there's a lot more of them than cross my path each day.

Senator Grassley thinks it will either be a landslide for Obama or a squeaker for McCain. Tuesday night could be a long one.

Political scientists and professional political advisers will be going over the returns for months. But we'll have some early clues -- at least as to who the ultimate winner is likely to be.

Here's a list of the eastern states and others that close their polls between 5:00 and 7:00 p.m. Central Time. Those with a * will be indications of the ultimate outcome -- especially if Obama is doing better than expected in rural areas, or McCain in urban areas. If one or the other is picking up a disproportionate share of the "swing states" it will be an indication that they will probably end up winning the presidency by the end of the evening.

Polls Closing, Central Time
[Source: CNN Election Center 2008]
* = states to watch for early clues regarding ultimate outcome (Real Clear Politics
is calling Georgia, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina and Ohio "toss-up" states. Virginia will also be a bell weather.)

5:00
* Indiana (ET counties)
Kentucky (ET counties)

6:00
* Florida (ET counties)
* Georgia
* Indiana
Kentucky
* New Hampshire (some towns 5:00)
South Carolina
Vermont
* Virginia

6:30
* North Carolina
* Ohio
West Virginia

7:00
Alabama
Connecticut
Deleware
District of Columbia
*Florida
Illinois
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
Missouri
New Jersey
Oklahoma
* Pennsylvania
Tennessee

7:30
Arkansas

8:00
Rhode Island

# # #

Process: Parental Leave & Project Vote Smart

May 1, 2008, 12:15 p.m.; May 3, 2008, 8:00 p.m. (electoral vote update)

What Do Parental Leave, Project Vote Smart,
and the Electoral College Have in Common?
Click to go directly to:

Electoral College
Project Vote Smart
Parental Leave

Electoral College. In Nicholas Johnson, "It's the Electoral College, Stupid!" April 22, 2008, I wrote,

"In point of fact, none of this [Senators Clinton's and Obama's shares of elected and super delegates, popular votes, or states "won"] matters.

What matters are electoral votes. Just as the delegate count is how the Democratic Party's rules provide for the nomination of a presidential candidate (though there is some remaining argument about the appropriate degree of independence super-delegates can properly exercise), so do the electoral college votes determine who gets elected president.

In short, the question is not how Clinton and Obama do when running against each other, the question -- for those who put "winning" first in their selection of a nominee -- is how each will do running against Senator McCain in November.

Since then, using the latest polling data from each state, I've put together my own spreadsheet of states, their electoral votes, and in match ups between Obama-McCain and Clinton-McCain who gets a given state's electoral votes.

As you might suspect, there are some states that will be won by either Clinton or Obama -- or lost to McCain -- regardless of who the Democrats' nominee may be, and some where the nominee makes a difference. Other states are too close to call -- for either Obama or Clinton, or for both.

Obviously, what folks say to pollsters in February, March and April is of only limited predictive value in guessing what they'll do in casting a secret ballot in November. But it's of some use, especially if you toss out (as I have) those instances in which the polls indicate it's pretty close. (There are many sources of this data; the one I relied on mostly is Electoral-vote.com.)

Anyhow, at this point in time (May 1):

(1) All the states have 540 electoral votes; so it takes 270 (or 271) to win.

(2) Deleting the results in states too close to call, or won by McCain, Senator Obama is now leading in states with 213 electoral votes and Senator Clinton in states with 194.

(3) Senator McCain wins states with 172 electoral votes running against Obama, and wins 268 electoral votes running against Clinton.

May 3 Update: Incorporating the data from Rasmussen Reports into the spreadsheet of what I already had from Electoral-vote.com the match-ups now indicate Senator Obama would have 229 to McCain's 196, and Senator Clinton would have 181 to his 322.

Again, to remind, in addition to polls' weaknesses as predictors of future events, they also change over time; a couple weeks from now we'll have some new and different numbers. Moreover, we still have more primaries to go -- most immediately, Indiana and North Carolina next Tuesday, May 6.

Project Vote Smart. In a 2004 Des Moines Register op ed I wrote,

Some candidates complain about the media's focus on elections as a horse race. They're right -- there isn't much issues coverage. But when candidates are invited by Project Vote Smart to disclose their positions on issues via the Internet, it might surprise you to find out who refuses.

Nicholas Johnson, "Election as a Civics Class," Des Moines Register, November 6, 2004.

In 2006 I blogged,

Taking a stand.

The Gazette editorialized the other day about Project Vote Smart's National Political Awareness Test. It's a non-partisan, "good government" effort to provide voters information about the positions of their candidates for public office. (The organization's page for Iowans is here.) Editorial, "Voters Want to Know," The Gazette, August 31, 2006.

The Gazette reports that "Both major political parties are advising candidates not to take the test. Party officials say the candidates will lose control of their campaign messages and they will be exposed to opposition research." That's one awful commentary about our major political parties -- both of them. What's worse, for a Democrat, is who did, and who did not, take "the test."

The Republican candidate for Iowa governor, Congressman Jim Nussle, did. The Democratic candidate, Secretary of State Chet Culver, did not. Moreover, apparently he has always refused to take it even as Secretary of State.

Republican incumbent Congressman Jim Leach not only takes the test, he was actually one of the founding board members for the organization. His Democratic Party challenger, Dave Loebsack, has so far refused to take it. [Note: (May 1) He subsequently responded to the criticism and took the test.]

Nicholas Johnson, "Taking a Stand" in "It's Getting Harder to be a Democrat," September 1, 2006.

This morning The Gazette is back on the topic again:

[S]adly, the number of state legislative and congressional candidates who took the Iowa version of the national survey, carefully composed by the respected Project Vote Smart organization, has dropped steadily over the past decade. In 1996, 40 percent of Iowa’s candidates for state legislative offices took the survey. In 2006, a paltry 7 percent did so. As for congressional candidates, two-thirds responded in 1996 but just one-third . . . did in 2006. The response rates from Iowa candidates are among the nation’s lowest. . . .

[W]hy do the vast majority of candidates refuse to participate?

Most cite pressure from their political parties and professional advisers, who tell candidates not to answer questions about positions on issues because opponents may use the information against them.

Oh. ... Then it seems they’re telling us that running for office is only about winning — that taking a position on major issues affecting their constituents isn’t important to the campaign process.

Not much courage in that.

Editorial, "The Courage to Take a Position," The Gazette, May 1, 2008, p. A4.

I wish The Gazette, I, and the many others including the Project Vote Smart folks who are trying to do something about all this could have a greater impact, rather than having to raise the issue every two years.

I'll have some suggestions at the end of this section, but as for this morning I'm feeling pretty much the same way I did when I wrote,

"Ya don't play-a da game . . . ya don't make-a da rules"

That was the reaction the Des Moines Register's beloved humor columnist Donald Kaul once offered to those religious leaders who practice celibacy but want to regulate the sexual behavior of everyone else. (Kaul's still writing; see Minuteman Media.) . . .

I've expressed in this blog my disappointment with Democrats (and Republicans) who refuse to disclose their positions on the issues to Project Vote Smart and others. See, "Taking a Stand" in Nicholas Johnson, "It's Getting Harder to Be a Democrat," September 1, 2006.

Elections are an opportunity for "continuing education" on the public policy choices confronting our country. See, Nicholas Johnson, "Election as a Civics Class," Des Moines Register, November 6, 2004. Project Vote Smart exists to encourage that education and public dialog. See, Project Vote Smart.

President Clinton said something to the effect that "we have more problems than we deserve, and more solutions than we've ever tried." However important you may think the issues of "God, guns and gays," or the "war on terrorism" (and Iraq), may be, there is a lot more we need to talk about.

There's no room to list everything, but universal health care (and basic public health measures), reversing the ever-increasing multi-trillion-dollar debt and adverse balance of trade, energy policy (including global warming), and attempting to rebuild positive international relations come immediately to mind as examples.

When candidates deliberately try to avoid the "teachable moments" provided by the campaign season, when they demonstrate their willingness to put their own election or re-election above the interests of the nation (or state), they are doing all of us a grave injustice -- if not, indeed, demonstrating their lack of qualifications to hold office.

At a minimum, when they refuse to participate in Project Vote Smart they should at least have the decency not to attempt to use to their partisan advantage the positions of their opponents who have participated.

"Ya don't play-a da game, ya don't make-a da rules."

Nicholas Johnson, "Ya don't play-a da game . . . ya don't make-a da rules," September 6, 2006.

So what can we do?

We can write letters to the editor of our local papers, urging them to use their much longer and stronger levers of power to pry participation out of our local candidates.

We can write the candidates themselves, and ask them in open meetings why they haven't participated.

We can help support the work of Project Vote Smart.

And given The Gazette's commendable focus on this issue over time, I'd like to politely suggest that it might want to turn some reporters' resources, and space in the paper, to reporting -- by name -- which candidates are refusing to participate, along with the positions on the issues of those who do.

Parental Leave. The University of Iowa has created (or expanded) its leave-with-pay policies for new parents. It's not necessary for me to get into the details for purposes of this commentary (which is fortunate, since I don't claim to understand them). State29, "Be Bold," May 1, 2008, does that -- and suggests the policy should be extended from the first six months of life to the first 18 years.

Intuitively it strikes me as, at worst, an acceptable idea. UI professors will still do some research and writing from home (which is supposed to be roughly half of what they're getting paid for anyway); it will help retain faculty; and it's undoubtedly good for the kids. On the other hand, someone will have to be hired to teach their classes, and there are some equity issues if the perk is not given to all UI employees.

No, the aspect of this I want to address is "governance," the relationship between the Regents and the UI administration, the "process."

Once the new members of the Board of Regents had been installed, and the disastrous year of searching for a new UI president was rapidly coming to any end, I wrote them an "open letter" with some suggestions about "governance." Nicholas Johnson, "An Open Letter to Regents on 'Governance'" in "UI Held Hostage Day 451 - Open Letter to Regents," April 17, 2007.

The way this faculty leave issue has been handled indicates to me that it may well be possible that there's still a little more work to be done by both sides with regard to their "governance model."

Former Regents' President Michael Gartner is reported to have sent an email to the current President, David Miles, indicating that Gartner first learned of this decision from the newspapers and that, in his opinion, it should have been discussed and approved by the Regents before being implemented: "I would like to raise the issue of process: Should a far-reaching policy such as this first be approved . . . by the Board of Regents?" Brian Morelli, "Regent Questions New UI Leave Policy for Parents; Raises Concerns About Whether It Sets Bad Precedent," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 1, 2008, p. A1.

UI President Sally Mason took a different view of the process:

[She] said the policy codified what has existed in the operations manual at UI for the past eight years. Some departments have been allowing the modified duties already, and staff and 12-month tenure-track faculty already have reaped the benefits as well, she said. The new policy only applies to nine-month time tenure-track faculty, she said.

Mason said she didn't mind if the regents wanted to discuss the policy or have it explained to them, but she did not expect them to intervene.

"It would be interesting, perhaps precedent-setting, if they get involved at this level. It would be a little curious," Mason said.

Brian Morelli, "Regent Questions New UI Leave Policy for Parents; Raises Concerns About Whether It Sets Bad Precedent," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 1, 2008, p. A1, A6.

The Gazette reports, "Regarding that policy, UI officials said it was their understanding the change needed only internal administrative approval at the university. Mason said UI officials checked with the regents’ office about the policy before moving forward with it." Diane Heldt, "New UI Policy Prompts Broader Benefit Questions," May 1, 2008, p. B3.

And,

"Susan Johnson, the U of I's associate provost, told the Register that she did not think the university's policy change required the regents' approval.

"For many years, university policy has authorized modifications of employee work schedules and duties to help reduce conflict with parental obligations," Johnson said.

Lisa Rossi, "Regent suggests that U of I acted too quickly," Des Moines Register, May 1, 2008.

So now let's see what we have here. A Regent would like to have the policy discussed and approved by the Regents. An associate provost "did not think" the policy required Regents' approval. Unnamed "UI officials said it was their understanding the change needed only internal administrative approval." Apparently the UI President felt the governance relationship with the Regents was such that it was necessary that "officials checked with the regents’ office about the policy before moving forward with it" and that, having done so, "she did not expect them to intervene." She also thought relevant the fact that related policies had been a part of UI regulations for eight years.

Now there are many approaches to governance besides that of John Carver -- though his is widely used and is very good in my experience. See, Nicholas Johnson, "Board Governance: Theory and Practice," with links to full text of some of John Carver's writing. It's probably not so important which governance model is used by a board-CEO as that the matter of governance has been thought through and some model established.

Carver talks in terms of "ends policies;" what most of us would call "measurable goals." Figuring out what those should be for a university, not to mention a statewide system of universities, is not easy; it's the kind of thing that makes your head hurt if you do it right. We're not talking about vague, general "strategic plans" or "mission statements." If you're interested in what we are talking about read Carver.

Carver says most boards (and he's worked with everything from NGOs to Fortune 500 corporate boards to school boards) are somewhere along a continuum from "micro-managing" to "rubber-stamping" when, in his view, there's no proper place along that continuum for them to be. Much of the literature, in his view, just explains to boards -- which he calls "incompetent groups of competent people" -- how to do the wrong things better.

It's tough to summarize more than one book in less than one paragraph. But I'll try anyway. A major part of his model is that it is the board's responsibility to come up with the "ends policies" (measurable goals) and then the CEO's responsibility to figure out how to achieve them. Those ends policies are both the CEO's job description and the standards by which her or his annual performance is evaluated.

Otherwise expressed, this creates a relationship in which the board says to the CEO, "go until we say stop," instead of "stop until we say go." There are "executive limitations" established by the board. But so long as the ends are attained, and the limitations are not violated, it's totally up to the CEO to choose the means.

How would such an approach have applied in this instance?

I think Gartner was right to "spot the issue" -- the governance ambiguity. But, without knowing more, my instinct would be to have ends policies such that the details of faculty leave policies would probably be considered "means" for a CEO (i.e., in this instance the UI president) rather than something for the Regents to address in an ends policy.

Were the ends policies clearly laid out, a Regent would know that this is not a matter with which Regents need concern themselves. An associate provost would not have to think, she would know that the administration did, or did not, have authority to move ahead. Officials would not be acting merely on their understanding. The President would not need to have an aide contact the Regents before implementing the new policy, nor think that because the university had already done something similar that therefore this variation need not come from the Regents.

So let me repeat, I do not think the policy is substantively flawed, nor that the Regents should have discussed and approved it before it was implemented. That's not what I'm writing about -- one way or the other.

All I'm suggesting is that it would be smoother and more efficient and effective for everyone involved if a governance policy had been clearly and precisely thought through, articulated, put to paper, and followed.

This faculty leave policy change just seemed to me a useful case study of that "process," of governance models (and their absence) -- not because it was an example of the results of necessarily erroneous administrative decisions.

Process. So today's theme is "process." Process in evaluating the progress of primaries and elections, process in making it possible for voters to know something of their candidates' positions, and process in board-CEO relationships.

# # #

"It's the Electoral College, Stupid!"

April 22, 2008, 3:30 p.m.; April 24, 2008, 2:45 p.m.

Here's an update on these issues from the April 24 New York Times that essentially confirms the assertions in this April 22 blog entry, Patrick Healy, "Democrats Assess Rivals’ Strength in Swing States," New York Times, April 24, 2008 ("exit polling and independent political analysts offer evidence that Mr. Obama could do just as well as Mrs. Clinton among blocs of voters with whom he now runs behind. . . . [H[e also appears well-positioned to win swing states and [has] a strong shot at winning traditional Republican states like Virginia . . . [drawing] majorities of support from lower-income voters and less-educated ones — just as Mrs. Clinton would against Mr. McCain, even though those voters have favored her over Mr. Obama in the primaries. . . . [T]he Pennsylvania exit polls, conducted by Edison/Mitofsky for five television networks and The Associated Press, underscore . . . : that state primary results do not necessarily translate into general election victories. . . . [He] appears better poised than Mrs. Clinton to pick up states that Democrats struggle to carry, or rarely do, in a general election, like Colorado, Iowa, Missouri and Virginia, all of which he carried in the primaries.").

Shell and Pea Game Takes Eyes Off Prize
Here are some thoughts to ponder as we await this evening's results from Pennsylvania where the polls will close at 8:00 p.m. ET/7:00 p.m. CT.

Up to now the focus has been on whether Senator Obama or Senator Clinton has the most "pledged delegates" -- plus those "super-delegates" leaning in their favor (or publicly committed to them).

Some talk about the popular vote totals of each. Occasionally there's mention of how many states each has won.

(These numbers change from day to day, but so far Obama wins the trifecta. He has about 150 more delegates, 700,000 more popular votes, and roughly 27 to her 14 states.)

More recently, the Clinton camp has been trying to make the argument that the super-delegates (whom she would need in big numbers to overturn Obama's lead) should favor her because she has won (in the primaries) and can win (in the general election) "the big states."

In point of fact, none of this -- including tonight's results from Pennsylvania -- matter.

What matters are electoral votes. Just as the delegate count is how the Democratic Party's rules provide for the nomination of a presidential candidate (though there is some remaining argument about the appropriate degree of independence super-delegates can properly exercise), so do the electoral college votes determine who gets elected president.

In short, the question is not how Clinton and Obama do when running against each other, the question -- for those who put "winning" first in their selection of a nominee -- is how each will do running against Senator McCain in November.

Moreover, the electoral allocation system differs from the delegate allocation system in most states. In the primaries the delegates are allocated between the candidates on a proportionate basis. (In Texas, for example, although the media still refers to it as a state Clinton "won," the fact is that the results were so close from the primary, given the proportional allocation, that Obama ended up with more delegates from Texas than she did -- because of the added boost he got from the Texas caucuses. So much so that Obama, not Clinton, actually "won" Texas -- however little "win" actually means in a proportional allocation system.)

In a general election the electoral votes are allocated on a "winner takes all" basis. In other words, when a candidate "wins" Pennsylvania in a primary they may end up with insignificantly more delegates than the candidate who "loses" Pennsylvania (or, as in Texas, actually fewer!). When a candidate "wins" Pennsylvania in a general election, by contrast, they get all of Pennsylvania's electoral votes.

So the most meaningful question is -- or ought to be -- simply, how do Clinton and Obama compare when matched against McCain?

And of course this very question presumes that the answer can be found in April of 2008, on the basis of polls, to an event in November of 2008 that takes place with secret ballots in closed voting booths.

But that's all we have to go on in April.

And based on that kind of analysis (much of which was done in March) it looks like Obama is the stronger candidate.

1. Some of the states Clinton "won" are states that vote so consistently and overwhelming Democratic that either Clinton or Obama would probably carry them -- such as California, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey.

2. Even in those states, Obama sometimes runs stronger against McCain than Clinton does -- which is, as noted, more relevant than whether Clinton or Obama won the state when contesting each other in a primary.

3. When important demographic groups to a Democratic victory are more supportive of Clinton than Obama in a race against McCain, Obama often has offsetting strength among other groups.

4. Obama offers the possibility of winning states that appear to be out of reach for Clinton in a race against McCain -- such as Mississippi, Missouri and Virginia. He would have an edge over her in Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin.

5. Senator Clinton's negatives, which continue to increase, could very well result in energizing the Republican base and bring out more "anti-Clinton" voters than Obama would produce.

I'm neither a pollster nor someone who has carefully reviewed all the data. Moreover, as I mentioned, it's a long way from April to November in politics. But here are examples of some of the items I saw at the top of the list after a quick Google search: Justin Ewers, "New Poll Weakens Clinton Supporters' Electoral College Argument; A new poll in California shows more voters now have a positive view of Obama despite Clinton's Super Tuesday win in the state," U.S. News & World Report, March 27, 2008; Robert Creamer, "Clinton's 'Big State' Myth: Why Barack Obama Remains the Most Electable Democrat This Fall," The Huffington Post, March 5, 2008, 5:48 p.m. ET; Spin Cycle, "Electoral Votes: How Obama/Clinton Would Win," newsday.com, March 6, 2008; Electoral Votes States Won.

Frankly, I admire Senator Joe Biden for his comment (at an early rally in Iowa City) that, "There are some things worth losing elections for." I don't think that "winning is the only thing." I have often supported long-shot candidates because of my admiration for their integrity and idealism.

So I'll be watching tonight's returns from that perspective like everybody else. I have my favorite.

But I'd also kind of like to win this time. And, from that perspective -- within limits -- it doesn't really matter very much how Pennsylvanians vote in a relatively close Democratic primary -- especially one that that doesn't change the delegate count spread significantly and allocates the "win" proportionately.

# # #