A two-person political race should be as close to a zero-sum game as we can imagine in practice. Apparently, this is not the case for the Democratic side of Super Tuesday.

Depending on whether you count the national popular vote, number of states won, yesterday’s pledged delegates, cumulative pledged delegates, or include current inclinations of “super-delegates” (the stodgy, voter-demeaning, party apparatchiks), everyone can win:

Obama Claims 9-Delegate Win
[The Nation]

Clinton Edges Obama
[Arizona Daily Star]

Obama claims lead in delegate count
[Boston Herald]

Clinton leads delegate count
[Associated Press]

Obama, Clinton neck and neck
[Chicago Sun Times]

Clinton Takes Lead
[Pensacola News Journal]

Superdelegates To Clinton’s Rescue?
[CBS News]

Where can one turn for answers? Who can explain how Obama both won and lost Nevada? Certainly the Democratic National Committee will provide the requisite analysis and definitive results!

No such luck. They are too busy watching another race:

Democratic National Committee

Not even a mention of the democratic race? Really?

“Don’t believe that winning is really everything. It’s more important to stand for something. If you don’t stand for something, what do you win?”

Lane Kirkland

Lane Kirkland, sixteen-year head of the AFL-CIO, was sometimes critical of the Democratic party. I wonder what he would think now.

Some time ago, I emailed my state representatives asking for their positions on interstate wine sales. I received a letter from State Senator Douglas Henry in response. I wasn’t expecting much, since the Senator receives substantial contributions from the liquor wholesalers cabal. As anticipated, with his donations, the Senator also apparently received the industry’s standard talking points, which are easily dismissed.

That, however, was not the disturbing part of the letter.

Continue reading »
Lobbying

Over 20 years ago, economist and FTC director Bruce Yandle wrote an influential column on the origins of social regulation. The theory of “Bootleggers and Baptists” contends that legislative regulation of “sin” (e.g., alcohol, tobacco) requires both a vocal “moral” voice (the Baptists) and a quiet though politically powerful lobby that profits from the regulation:

“Baptists” point to the moral high ground and give vital and vocal endorsement of laudable public benefits promised by a desired regulation. Baptists flourish when their moral message forms a visible foundation for political action. “Bootleggers” are much less visible but no less vital. Bootleggers, who expect to profit from the very regulatory restrictions desired by Baptists, grease the political machinery with some of their expected proceeds. They are simply in it for the money.

Here in Tennessee we have some of the most draconian laws protecting the liquor wholesalers. We also have no shortage of legislators who speak in moral absolutes. Of course, the “Baptist” is the protagonist in this story, since he purports to represent moral ideology and social welfare, rather than cynical greed.

Or does he?

Of the 32 members currently serving in the Tennessee State Senate, seven find their religious affiliation with Baptism sufficiently important to list on their short State Senate biography. While Baptist conventions continue their internal debate on the merits of total abstinence from alcohol, there is apparently no debate on whether one ought to practice, legislatively, what one preaches.

A quick perusal of campaign finance records indicates that all seven members have received political donations from the beer and spirits lobby since 2000. Particularly:

The “Baptist” in Yandle’s theory is not meant to be literal, but merely a proxy for the voice of morality. However, other self-professed voices of moderation would likely yield similar results.

Anyone want to guess how many of these names also profited from tobacco lobbyists’ efforts?

Here are the cards for Presidential Bingo for tonight’s debate.

If you have Card 1, note that a winning diagonal of “flip flop,” “cut and run,” “France,” and “nuance” could very well occur in a single sentence.